C.R. No.221 of 2005 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.R. No.221 of 2005 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 11.08.2009
Buta Singh .....Petitioner
Versus
Harnam Singh ....Respondent
Present: Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Advocate
for Mr. Sanjay Majithia, Advocate
for the respondent.
CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ? No
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No
-.-
K. KANNAN J. (ORAL)
1. The civil revision is against an order dismissing an application
filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking for a condonation of
74 days delay in preferring the appeal. The suit had been decreed for
specific performance and the defendant, who failed to get the appeal
admitted, is the revision petitioner before this Court.
2. The Appellate Court has referred to the fact that each day’s
delay was bound to be explained and 74 days delay cannot be condoned
and also cited decisions to the effect that it is not the number of days
delay that is relevant but the cause for delay that would be important for
consideration. The lower Appellate Court also considered that the
execution petition had also been filed before the Lower Court and the
appeal had been filed only after the process in execution had started to
C.R. No.221 of 2005 (O&M) -2-
prevent the decree-holder from realizing the fruits of the decree.
3. While no serious exception could be taken for the judicial
reasoning adopted by the Appellate Court, I still feel that in suits relating
to immovable property, the Courts could take liberal view of the matter
and allow parties to seek adjudication on merits. The cause for the delay
complained of by the defendant was that his counsel had not informed
him. It is rather a recurring theme in a litigant’s experience that the
correct information regarding the date of judgment is not informed or the
copies of the judgment had not been made available to the parties within
time. If there was a delay in preferring the appeal, the appropriate
reparation for a plaintiff, who had been delayed from obtaining an
adjudication on merits could be compensated with costs. Having regard
to the fact that the case had been pending for a period of more than four
years and the decree-holder has not been able to enforce the decree,
which he had obtained on 18.01.2003, I award costs of Rs.10,000/- to be
paid by the revision petitioner to the decree-holder on or before
15.09.2009, failing which the order passed by the lower Appellate Court
shall stand confirmed. If the amount is paid before that date, the order of
the Appellate Court shall be set aside and the Appellate Court shall take
up the case and dispose it of on merit within a period of four months
from the date of receipt of the record.
4. Subject to the above, the civil revision petition is disposed of.
(K. KANNAN)
JUDGE
August 11, 2009
Pankaj*