The High Court dismissed an appeal challenging a reference court award. The court rejected the appellant's plea for condoning a 307-day delay, holding the appellant failed to show sufficient cause and that lack of information from counsel was not a valid excuse.
The appeal and other applications were not allowed and were dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RFA No.4459 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 15.11.2011
Labh Singh
......Appellant(s)
Versus
Union Territory, Chandigarh
......Respondent(s)
CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
Present: Mr. P.C. Dhiman, Advocate for the appellant.
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral)
There is a delay of 307 days in filing this apeal .
The following averments have been made in support of the
application for condonation of delay which reads thus:
“That the learned reference Court vide award dated 6.3.2010 has disposed of 82-land reference cases by one common award. Shri Mohan Singh Rana, Advocate, who was engaged by the appellant as counsel in the reference Court did not inform the appellant about the decision of the reference. The appellant came to know about the decision of his case only on 3.3.2011 when he contacted the undersigned counsel regarding fate of other connected cases out of some other acquisitions of village Lahora, U.T. Chandigarh and he came to know that the land reference case qua his land situated in village Sarangpur, U.T., Chandigarh has already been decided on 6.3.2010 after remand from the Hon'ble High Court.”
Thus, the defence has been taken that the applicant was not
in the knowledge of the decision of the Reference Court for want of any information from his counsel. However, there is no such averment that it was the duty of the counsel to inform him with regard to the decision of his
RFA No.4459 of 2011(O&M)
-2-
case. It was for the appellant to pursue his remedy with due diligence. Thus, the plea seems to have been taken to cover up appellant's own fault. No sufficient cause has been shown to condone the delay. Thus, prayer is rejected.
Resultantly, the appeal and other applications do not survive
and dismissed as such.
November 15, 2011 ps
(RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether sufficient cause was shown to condone a delay of 307 days in filing the appeal.
Labh Singh
Union Territory, Chandigarh
Rakesh Kumar Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
