1
SB Civil Writ Petition No.1590/2009
Sukhdev. vs. Vijay Chand Surana.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1590/2009
Sukhdev. vs. Vijay Chand Surana.
Date : 23.3.2009
HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J.
Mr.HS Srimali, for the petitioner.
Mr.Arun Bhansali, for the respondent.
– – – – –
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner, who was defendant in the suit
for eviction, faced an ex-parte decree on
13.4.2005. He submitted an application under Order
9 Rule 13 CPC in the trial court on 11.7.2005
which was rejected by the trial court on 7.8.2006.
Then the petitioner preferred writ petition before
this High Court on 26.4.2007, though the order was
appealable. This Court passed a detailed order on
7.8.2007, yet the petitioner did not choose to
withdraw the writ petition and ultimately, that
writ petition was withdrawn on 18.1.2008 with
liberty to file appeal before the appellate court.
Then the petitioner preferred first appeal before
2
SB Civil Writ Petition No.1590/2009
Sukhdev. vs. Vijay Chand Surana.
the appellate court on 7.2.2008. This Court while
rejecting the petitioner’s writ petition granted
liberty to the petitioner to file the appeal as
the order was appealable.
Though there cannot be question of bonafides
in challenging the order of the trial court passed
on application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC by
way of writ petition, yet even if the period
consumed in prosecuting the matter in the Court of
law is taken into account under Section 14 of the
Indian Limitation Act, even then as per the trial
court, the petitioner failed to explain the delay
of eight months in filing the appeal and that was
the period from 7.8.2006 to 26.4.2007, which was
the period in which, no proceedings were pending
in the court of law to challenge the impugned
order.
The trial court rightly held that the
petitioner can be given benefit at the most of the
period which was consumed by him in prosecuting
the matter in the court bonafide and that period
is only from the date of filing of the writ
petition to the date of withdrawal of the writ
3
SB Civil Writ Petition No.1590/2009
Sukhdev. vs. Vijay Chand Surana.
petition and if that period is credited, then
also, the petitioner’s appeal is barred by time
hopelessly.
In view of the above reasons, I do not find
any illegality in the impugned order.
Consequently, this writ petition, having no
merits, is hereby dismissed.
(PRAKASH TATIA), J.
S.Phophaliya