Shree Digvijay Cement Company ... vs Union Of India & Anr.
2009 Latest Caselaw 464 Del

           * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                      Date of Reserve: 29.1.2009
                                               Date of Order: 09th February, 2009

IAs No. 14693/08 & 14694/08 in CS(OS) No. 24/1983
%                                                                   09.02.2009


      Shree Digvijay Cement Company Ltd.        ... Plaintiff
                      Through: Ms. Aishwarya Bhati with
                                         Mr. Himanshu Singh, Adv.

             Versus


      Union of India & Anr.                 ... Defendants
                      Through: Mr. Rajesh Katyal, Adv.



JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?

3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?

ORDER

This application has been made under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC for

restoration of the suit. Along with this application another application has also

been made under Section 5 of the Limitation Act stating that a delay of 57 days in

filing the restoration application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC be condoned. In the

entire application, no reason has been given for condonation of delay. The suit

was dismissed for non-prosecution on 25.8.2008 in presence of the Counsel for

both the parties, since the witness of the plaintiff had not been appearing for his

examination continuously for more than a year. The application for restoration, if

at all lied, could have been filed within period of 30 days. Despite knowing that

the suit has been dismissed for non-prosecution, no reason has been given why

the application was not filed within 30 days and no explanation has been given of

delay of 57 days. The only thing stated in the application is that the reason given

in the other application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC be considered as part of the

reasons given in the application. I find no ground to allow this application. The

application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is hereby dismissed.

Consequentially, the application IA no. 14693/09 for restoration of the suit, which

has been made beyond the period of limitation, also stands dismissed.

February 09, 2009                               SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
vn