Surya Prakash Vs. Mohd. Jameel Khan - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- industrial disputes act, 1947. section 2(s): [m.s. shah, sharad d. dave & k.s. jhaveri,jj] workman part time employees held, part time employees are not excluded from the definition of workman in section 2(s) merely on the ground that they are part time employees. the ex abundante cautela use of the words either whole time or part time by the legislature in the definition of working journalist in the working journalists and other newspaper employees (conditions of service and miscellaneous provisions) act, 1955, does not mean that the definition of workman in the prior act i.e. industrial disputes act, 1947 intended to exclude part-time employees from the definition of workman. the expression part time has nothing to do with the nature of appointment, but it only regulates the.....ordergokal chand mital, c.j. 1. the suit was filed by the respondent under order 17 of the code of civil procedure against the petitioner. the petitioner filed an application for leave to defend. that application was dismissed in default of the appearance of the objector. few days after expiry of 30 days, an application was filed under order 37 rule 4 read with order 9 rule 13 cpc. the court applied the limitation of 30 days and held that the application was beyond limitation and dismissed it on this ground alone. this is revision against the said order.2. the learned counsel for the petitioner argues that order 9 rule 13 cpc is not applicable to this case and for filing an application under order 37 rule 4 cpc, which is the provision applicable in this case, the residuary period of.....

Judgment:
ORDER

Gokal Chand Mital, C.J.

1. The suit was filed by the respondent under Order 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the petitioner. The petitioner filed an application for leave to defend. That application was dismissed in default of the appearance of the objector. Few days after expiry of 30 days, an application was filed under Order 37 Rule 4 read with Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. The court applied the limitation of 30 days and held that the application was beyond limitation and dismissed it on this ground alone. This is revision against the said order.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that Order 9 Rule 13 CPC is not applicable to this case and for filing an application under Order 37 Rule 4 CPC, which is the provision applicable in this case, the residuary period of limitation of three years under Article 137 of the Limitation Act will apply and not the one provided for filing an application under Ordcr9 Rule 13 CPC. In support of this argument, he relies on the decision of Chief Justice Chhagla in P. N. Films Ltd. v. Overseas Films Corporation Limited, AIR 1958 Bom 10. The contention is fully supported by the above referreddecision.

3. Accordingly, the revision is allowed. The order of Court below dated 17-9-1990 isset aside and the matter is sent back to the court below to decide the application within the four corners of the provisions of Order 37, Rule 4, C.P.C. viz., regarding (he special circumstances, if any, which may justify the setting aside of the order.

4. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the court below on 23rd Sept. 1994.