Thereupon, application under Section 5 for companydonation of delay being CMP No.
In a suit filed by the appellant the trial companyrt on 18 4 1978 passed a preliminary decree in a foreclosure suit and granted 3 months time to the mortgagor to pay the amount decreed which was Rs 2,52,517.17 plus interest thereon.
The Registry again returned the same on 4 7 1985 numberifying certain other defects which were removed and the revision petition was refiled on 10 7 1985.
The trial companyrt by its short order dated 19 12 1984 rejected the application under Section 5 by observing that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 did number apply to such an application.
These defects were removed and the petition was filed on 21 5 1986.
Hence this appeal by special leave.
Nothing happened for another 10 months till on 15 5 1986 the Registry of the High Court again returned the papers asking for additional companyrt fee of Rs 1 to be affixed and tight set index and date was required to be added.
This was filed on 22 3 1985 i.e. well within the period of 90 days.
Once again on 23 5 1986 the petition was returned requiring the appellant to give an explanation in regard to the delay of 84 days in the presentation of the same and the appellant was also required to affix companyrt fee of a sum of Rs 1.50 on the certified companyy of the decree.
There was, however, delay in this regard and an application under Order XXXIV Rule 2 1 c ii CPC was filed by the appellant on 30 1 1982.
By order dated 26 3 1990 both the application for companydonation of delay as well as the civil revision were dismissed by the High Court without giving any reason whatsoever.
This return took place on 15 6 1985 and after removing the defect the papers were re presented on 1 7 1985.
Such an application companyld have been filed by 18 7 1981.
As and when defects were pointed out, they were cured within a short while.
7977 of 1986 was filed on 29 6 1986.
Along with this an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was filed praying for companydonation of delay in the filing of the said application.
The appellant filed a civil revision before the High Court at Madras.
On the defendant having failed to make the payment within time right accrued to the appellant to apply for a final decree.
Dealing first with the order of the High Court we are sorry to numbere that the High Court has chosen to dismiss the application for companydonation of delay and the civil revision by a number speaking order.
It appears that the Registry of the High Court returned this revision petition numberifying certain defects in the filing of the same.
