Civil Revision No. 5087 of 2009 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 5087 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of decision: 07.09.2009
Rajbir
....Petitioner
Versus
Jagdish
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA
Present: -Ms. Avnish Mandla, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
*****
VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL)
CM No. 21160-CII of 2009
Allowed. The applicant-appellant is exempted from filing
certified copies of Annexures P-1 to P-3 and is permitted to place on
record the true typed copies thereof.
CR No. 5087 & CM No. 21161-CI of 2009
This revision petition is directed against the order dated
23.3.2009, passed by the learned District Judge, Jhajjar, allowing an
application moved under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condoning
the delay in filing the appeal.
The petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of
agreement dated 29.09.2004, which was decreed on 19.11.2007.
It was the pleaded case of the defendant/respondent, that
after the passing of the decree, he obtained certified copy immediately
and handed it over to his counsel for filing the appeal. The amount of
stamp papers and miscellaneous expenses was also paid. It is further
averred in the application, that he was kept under a wrong impression
Civil Revision No. 5087 of 2009 (O&M)
-2-
by the counsel, as he was told that the appeal stood filed. However, it
was only on 11.8.2008, that the respondent came to know that the
appeal had not been filed.
The application was contested by pleading that the
plaintiff/petitioner had concealed the material facts from the Court, and
that the sale deed under decree already stood executed and, therefore,
no sufficient cause is shown for condoning the delay of 252 days. Other
pleas to non-suit the plaintiff/petitioner were also taken.
The learned District Judge, on appreciation of evidence and
specially, keeping in view the fact, that the application filed by the
defendant/respondent was supported by an affidavit, whereas no
affidavit was filed by the plaintiff/petitioner to rebut the averments made
in the application and allowed the application.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
contends, that the learned Court below was not justified in condoning
the delay, as no sufficient cause was shown to condone the delay of
252 days.
This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner
cannot be accepted. It is well settled law, that the party cannot be
allowed to suffer for the fault on the part of the counsel. Furthermore,
the averments made in the application were supported by an affidavit,
which were not rebutted by the petitioner. Therefore, no fault can be
found with the impugned order in accepting the averments made by the
defendant/respondent for condoning the delay.
No merit.
Dismissed.
(Vinod K. Sharma)
Judge
September 07, 2009
R.S.