High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

State Of Haryana Through … vs Smt. Nirmla Devi And Others on 13 October, 2011

Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana Through … vs Smt. Nirmla Devi And Others on 13 October, 2011
CR No. 2951 of 2006                                     1


IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

                                      CR No. 2951 of 2006
                                      Date of decision October 13, 2011


State of Haryana through Collector, Bhiwani, District Bhiwani


                                                        .......   Petitioner
                               Versus

Smt. Nirmla Devi and others

                                                        ........Respondents

CORAM:            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN


Present:-         Mr. K. C. Gupta, Senior DAG., Haryana
                  for the petitioner.

                  None for the respondents.

                               ****

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?

2. To be referred to the reporters or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
digest?

K. Kannan, J (oral).

1. The Civil revision is against the dismissal of the

petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of

eight months in preferring the appeal. The appeal was against the final

decree in a partition action. The Court had observed that the final decree

itself was subsequent to the preliminary decree and there was no appeal

against the preliminary decree itself. The Court also did not find any

justifiable reason to condone the delay of eight months. In a case where a

preliminary decree was passed without any contest and there had been no

objection, there is again no reason to reopen the matter afresh. I have not

been shown any particular prejudice caused by the passing of final decree.

There is no attempt made even at the stage of revision to explain the delay.
CR No. 2951 of 2006 2

The discretion has been properly exercised by the Appellate Authority and I

find no reason to interfere with the same.

2. The Civil revision is dismissed.

(K. KANNAN)
JUDGE
October 13, 2011
archana