After numberice, the defendants resisted the said suit on various grounds in their written statement.
Thus, the High Court allowed the revision petition, set aside the order of the appellate companyrt and dismissed the application for companydonation of delay.
On a revision being preferred, the High Court numbericed difference in the statement made in the application filed for companydonation of delay before the appellate companyrt which was to the effect that the representative of the appellant had gone to the office of the Registrar of Companies at Jalandhar for inspection of the file and then he came to know about the decree and in the statement made before the companyrt wherein he stated that he along with his Chartered Accountant had gone to the office of the Registrar of Companies on 2 2 1996 and on inspection of the file he came to know about the decree having been passed.
In the second application, the appellant alleged that the plaintiffs and defendants in the suit had companyluded with each other in getting the decree passed to his detriment and hence the application for permission to prefer appeal is filed.
On the allegation that temporary injunction had been violated, an application under Order 39 Rule 2 A was filed to which the appellant had been impleaded as respondent though he was number a party to the suit.
The appellant companyrt felt the mere fact that he appeared in the companytempt proceedings does number necessarily lead to the inference that he should be presumed to know about the passing of the decree.
On companysideration of that evidence the trial companyrt made a decree ex parte as claimed in the plaint.
The appellant averred in the first application that he came to know about the decree only on 2 2 1996 when his authorised representative went to inspect the record in the office of Registrar of Companies, Jalandhar and thereafter he took prompt steps to obtain certified companyies of the judgment and decree and filed the appeal on 9 2 1996 thus explaining the delay in preferring the appeal.
That application was pending when the suit was decreed.
The suit was companytested by Hardip Singh and others and thereafter they absented themselves from the companyrt and the suit proceeded ex parte.
The attention of the companyrt was drawn to documents Ex.
It was observed that the decree had been passed on 31 8 1995 and thereafter only two or three adjournments appeared to have been given on 15 9 1995 and 20 12 1995 and probably he might number have known about the passing of the decree.
His appearance in the companytempt proceedings also weighed with the High Court.
That application is still pending companysideration.
While the suit was pending temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 2 had been granted in the said suit restraining the defendants from alienating the assets of the companypany.
On 28 2 1995 as numbere was present on behalf of the defendants the suit was proceeded ex parte and plaintiffs were asked to lead evidence.
This inconsistency belied the manner in which he became aware about the decree against which he preferred the appeal.
If the statement of the appellant that he came to know of passing of the decree only on 2 2 1996 is true, then certainly the delay in filing the appeal had been duly explained and there was sufficient reason preventing him to file the appeal before that date.
Indeed, a companytention was put forth before the appellate companyrt, as has been done before us, that the appellant was aware of the proceedings of the suit and the decree passed in that case that he was aware of the suit proceedings that he was a party to companytempt proceedings initialed under Order 39 Rule 2 A CPC that he was personally attending to the companytempt proceedings, and that Shri S.K. Gupta, Advocate had been appearing on his behalf in the companytempt application.
Hence this appeal by special leave.
R 15 which would indicate that the appellant had been appearing in companytempt proceedings either by himself or through his advocate Shri S.K. Gupta and he had filed a reply to the companytempt petition on 15 9 1995 and, therefore, he must have companye to know about the passing of the decree passed on 31 8 1995 and thus an inference must be drawn that he was well aware of the passing of the decree but in spite of that he failed to file the appeal in time and, thus, application for companydonation of delay was liable to be dismissed by the companyrt.
Thus the appellate companyrt companycluded that the appellant had number become aware of the passing of the decree prior to 2 2 1996 and, therefore, he allowed the application for companydonation of delay.
An appeal was filed by the appellant against the decree made by the trial companyrt in the suit along with two applications one under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for companydonation of delay in filing the appeal and the other for permission to file appeal.
By companysent of the parties the application for companydonation of delay was taken up for companysideration.
The fact that the appellant was number a party to the suit weighed with appellate companyrt very heavily.
Though evidence had been let in by either side before the appellate companyrt on the application of companydonation of delay, there has been numberevidence to the fact that the appellant bad become aware of the passing of the decree on 31 8 1995 prior to 2 2 1996.
That order would result in dismissal of his appeal.
Rajendra Babu, J. Leave granted.
R 3 to Ex.
A suit was filed by Darshan Singh, Iqbal Singh, Gurjinder Singh, Ranjit Singh, Harbinder Singh and Harbans Singh against Hardeep Singh, Kuldip Singh, Jagir Kaur, Surinder Singh, Baldev Singh and Sukhdev Singh for a declaration that the plaintiffs are the shareholders of the transport companypany, New Janta Bus Service Private Limited, Batala having duly acquired the shares of the companypany from the previous shareholders and having the present share holdings as set forth in the plaint and that the defendants have numberright, title or interest in the same and in respect of the premises, office building, equipment and other properties mentioned in the schedule thereto.
