Loading...

Kallu Scooter Service vs Shri Shri 1008 Jagat Guru … on 12 November, 2010

Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kallu Scooter Service vs Shri Shri 1008 Jagat Guru … on 12 November, 2010
                                                                     1.....



                        R.P. No.570 of 2010.




12.11.2010


      Shri R.K. Verma, Counsel for the applicants.
      Ms. Neelam Goel, Counsel for the respondents.

This order shall decide review petitions No.569 of 2010,
R.P. No.570 of 2010, R.P. No.571 of 2010 and R.P. No. 572 of
2010 in which the applicants are seeking review of common
order dated 13.8.2010 passed in Civil Revision No.350/09,
C.R.351/09, C.R. No. 353/09 and C.R. No.356/10. For
convenience facts are taken from R.P. No.569 of 2010.

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the
Division Bench was considering a reference made by a Single
Bench of this Court on 26.3.2010 by which following question
was referred:-

” Whether the view of the learned Single Bench
of this Court in the matter of Mohan @ Munna
Pachari (supra) that the period spent for obtaining
certified copy of ex-parte decree cannot be excluded
for calculating the limitation under Article 123 of the
Limitation Act is the correct view or the earlier
contract view of the Single Bench of this Court in the
matter of Shakuntala Singh (supra) is correct?”

The Division Bench has not considered the fact that in
Shakuntala Singh (supra) in which period spent in obtaining
certified copy was excluded and delay was condoned. It is
submitted that Shakuntala Singh’s case was based on a
judgment of the Privy Council in Jijibhoy N. Surty vs. T.S.
Chettyar [AIR 1928 PC 103] and also of the Apex Court in The
Additional Collector, Customs, Calcutta and another vs.
M/s Best and Co. [AIR 1966 SC 1713].

Stating aforesaid, it was submitted that the matter may be
reheard to consider the ratio of Mohan and Shakuntala Singh

2…..

R.P. No.570 of 2010.

12.11.2010

(supra) in which different view has been taken by two different
Single Bench of this Court. After going through the order dated
13.8.2010 in the aforesaid cases, in Shakuntala Singh vs.
Basant Kumar Thakur &
ors [2003(3) MPLJ 414] and Mohan
@ Munna Pachauri vs. Jagdish Chandra Dubey [ILR 2008
MP 1402], we find that the aforesaid contention is misconceived.

In Mohan @ Munna Pachauri (supra), learned Single
Judge was considering the question of exclusion of a period
spent in obtaining the certified copy in filing an application
under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC while in Shakuntala Singh (supra)
another Single Bench of this Court was considering the question
in respect of condonation of delay of period spent in obtaining
the certified copy of the judgment and decree for filing an
application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. The Division Bench in
the aforesaid cases by order dated 13.8.2010 found that there
is no conflict of judgment in both the cases and decided the
reference in para 18 of the order.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any
merit in these review petitions. All the review petitions are
accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.



 (Krishn Kumar Lahoti)                     (Smt. Vimla Jain)
       JUDGE                                       JUDGE
vj
 

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information