Allowed

Haryana Urban Development Authority and Anr. v. Vikram Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Jan 2009RSA/3200/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this oral judgment, the High Court allowed a condonation application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for a 51-day delay in filing a second appeal. The delay was accepted as caused by administrative procedure. The main appeal on merits involving an easement of necessity was subsequently dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The condonation application (C.M. Nos. 9556-57-C of 2008) was allowed, condoning a 51-day delay in filing the appeal.

Haryana Urban Development Authority… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

R.S.A. No. 3200 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision : 12.1.2009

¶3

Haryana Urban Development Authority & another

¶4

.......... Appellants

Versus

Vikram Singh

...... Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA

¶9

Present : Mr. R.S. Madan, Advocate for the appellants.

¶10

¶11

VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL)

¶12

C.M. Nos. 9556-57-C of 2008

¶13

This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 51 days in filing the appeal.

¶14

It has been averred in the application that the delay in filing the appeal has occurred due to administrative procedure involved in taking a decision to file appeal.

¶15

The condonation of delay only entitles a party to contest the claim on merit and once it is proved on record that the delay has occurred due to the administrative procedure involved, it is to be held that sufficient ground is made out for condoning the delay of 51 days in filing the appeal. The C.M. is allowed. The delay of 51 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶16

R.S.A. No. 3200 of 2008

¶17

This regular second appeal is directed against the judgments

¶18

R.S.A. No. 3200 of 2008 (O&M) -2-

¶19

and decrees dated 24.4.2007 passed by the learned trial Court and dated 1.4.2008 passed by the learned lower appellate Court vide which suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent seeking permanent injunction restraining the appellant-defendant from blocking the passage by raising a wall, has been ordered to be dismissed.

¶20

It is undisputed fact that plaintiff is owner of land, where construction has been raised and he is also carrying on the agricultural pursuits. The remaining land of the plaintiff-respondent stands acquired.

¶21

The case set up by the plaintiff-respondent was that the passage being blocked by the appellant-defendant, is the only passage to his land and, therefore, he was entitled to injunction on the principle of easement of necessity. It was also claimed that said passage was being used by the plaintiff-respondent for over 30 years without any interference.

¶22

The suit was contested by taking a plea that there is an alternative passage available to the plaintiff-respondent from the main old Delhi Gurgaon road.

¶23

In order to find out the true position, the learned trial Court was pleased to appoint a Local Commissioner, who submitted his report Ex. PW4/A. In the report it was specifically mentioned that there was no other passage to the land of the plaintiff-respondent except the passage in dispute. The appellant did not file any objection to the said plea and, therefore, on the basis of evidence brought on record a concurrent finding of fact has been recorded by the learned Courts below that except the passage in

¶24

R.S.A. No. 3200 of 2008 (O&M) -3-

¶25

dispute, which was sought to be blocked, there is no other passage to the land of the plaintiff-respondent. The suit stands decreed.

¶26

The finding of fact recorded by the learned Courts below is based on appreciation of evidence. The appeal, therefore, raises no question of law muchless a substantial question of law, to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact.

¶27

There being no merit, the appeal is ordered to be dismissed.

¶28

12.1.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE

Haryana Urban Development Authority and Anr. v. Vikram Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haryana Urban Development Authority and Anr. v. Vikram Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chief Town Planner Officer Vs Surinder Singh and Ors.

State of Haryana Vs Umed Singh

Chhater Singh and Ors. Vs Zile Singh and Ors.

Chhaju Ram and Ors. Vs Basant Nath

Kashmir Singh Vs Punjabi University and Anr.

S D O Uhbvnl and Ors. Vs M/S Sehjad Trading Co.