' This is a revision petition against the order of the Additional District Judge, Bhimber, dated November 30, 1987, whereby the application of the petitioner for restoration of his appeal dismissed in default, was dismissed.
2, The brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that the petitioner had filed an appeal against the judgment and decree of the Sub-Judge,. Bhimber, dated April 19, 1982, in the Court of District Judge, Mirpur but the same was dismissed for default of his appearance on November 16, 1985. The petitioner filed a revision petition against the aforesaid order of the District Judge before this Court which directed the petitioner to file the application for restoration of his appeal dismissed in default, before the District Judge vide its order dated May 3, 1986. The petitioner then filed an application for restoration of his appeal referred to above and dismissed in default, on June 21, 1986. The learned Additional District Judge dismissed the above application on the ground of its being time-barred. Hence this revision petition.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner could not file the application for restoration of his appeal dismissed in default in time on account of his illness and, as such his above application ought to have been treated within time by the trial Court by condoning the delay caused in its filing.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has contended that under the law, an application for restoration of an appeal dismissed in default, is required to be filed within 30 days from the date of order of its dismissal and the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act are not applicable to such an application. He has further contended that, anyhow, the application of the petitioner for restoration of his appeal dismissed in default, was even not filed within 30 days from the date of the order of the High Court directing the petitioner to make the application for restoration of his appeal before the District Judge.
5. I have given my due consideration to the above contentions of the learned counsel for the parties after which I have no alternative but to hold that the application of the petitioner for restoration of his appeal before the Additional District Judge, Bhimber was hopelessly time-barred.
In this view of the matter, the impugned order is perfectly lawful which needs no interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional powers. I quite agree with the learned counsel for the respondents that the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act are not applicable to the application filed under Order 41, Rule 19, G.P.C. Under which an application for restoration of an appeal dismissed in default is made.
6. Apart from the above legal position in this case, there appears no ground for condoning the delay occurred in filing the application by the petitioner for restoration of his appeal dismissed in default by the District Judge. The above application has been filed by the petitioner even after the lapse of 30 days from the date of the order of the High Court made in an application for revision, directing the petitioner to move the District Judge for the restoration of his appeal dismissed for his non-appearance on the date fixed for its hearing. There is no explanation as to why this application was not made within 30 days from the aforesaid order of this Court.
7. For the foregoing reasons, I dismiss this revision petition finding no substance in it.