AIR 2002 SUPREME COURT 451 ::2001 AIR SCW 5065 ::2002 SCFBRC 135 ::(2001) ILR 2 P&H 484 ::(2002) 1 MarriLJ 450 ::(2002) 1 MahLR 732 ::(2002) WLC(SC)CVL 103 ::2002 (1) UJ (SC) 148 ::2002 UJ(SC) 1 148 ::(2002) 1 HinduLR 537 ::(2002) 1 CivLJ 730 ::(2002) 1 All RentCas 194 ::(2002) 1 CivilCourtC 21 ::2002 (3) SCC 156 ::2002 (1) RecCivR 555 ::(2001) 4 RecCivR 791 ::(2001) 8 Scale 476 ::2002 (2) All CJ 981 ::2002 (1) CurCC 35 ::2002 (1) Cal HN 113 ::(2002) 46 All LR 289 ::2002 (1) BLJ 310 ::2002 (1) All WC 395 ::(2002) 1 DMC 297 ::2002 (1) ICC 401 ::(2002) MatLR 211 ::2002 (3) MadLW 414 ::(2002) 1 JCR 315 (SC) ::(2002) 1 Raj LW 113 ::(2001) 3 Pun LR 424 ::2002 (2) Pun LR 249 ::(2002) 1 LandLR 527 ::2001 (4) LRI 1155 ::2002 (1) UC 226 ::2001 (8) Supreme 636 ::2002 HRR 185 ::2002 (2) SRJ 144 ::(2001) 10 JT 463 (SC)

Supreme Court Of India

(From : Punjab and Haryana)

Hon'ble Judge(s): M. B. Shah, B. N. Agrawal , JJ

Civil P.C. (5 of 1908) , O.9 R.9, S.115— Limitation Act (36 of 1963) , S.5— Restoration of suit - Belated application filed - All relevant facts have been stated in application not only to show that plaintiff has sufficient cause for non-appearance, but, also to show sufficient cause for condonation of delay - Petition for condonation of delay, therefore, simply stating that facts, stated in restoration application may be considered for condoning delay - No specific reference to petition for condonation of delay in order of restoration passed by trial Court - No material irregularity - Order of restoration cannot be said to have been passed without condoning delay in filing restoration application - Order not liable to be interfered with in revision. 2001 HRR 288 (Punj and Har), Reversed. (Para 7)