Partly allowed

Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and Anr. v. Jagjit Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Dec 2012CR/2650/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order upholds a Civil Revision petition challenging an impugned dismissal of an application for restoration of an appeal. The High Court directs the Appellate Court to decide the restoration application and the subsequent appeal on merits.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is set aside and the Appellate Court is directed to decide the application for condonation of delay along with the main appeal on merits.

Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

Civil Revision No.2650 of 2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Civil Revision No.2650 of 2012 Date of decision: 01.12.2012

¶5

Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and another

……Petitioners

Versus

Jagjit Singh

…….Respondents

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL

¶11

Present: Ms. Manpreet Kaur, Advocate, for Mr. G.S. Gill, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶12

Mr. Mayank Mathur, Advocate, for the respondent.

¶13

¶14

A.N. Jindal, J.

¶15

The order dated 22.11.2011 passed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala, dismissing the application for restoration of the appeal, filed by the petitioners, is under challenge.

¶16

The petitioners filed an appeal against the judgment of the trial Court before the first Appellate Court, which was dismissed in default vide order dated 20.12.2006. The relevant part of the order is reproduced as under:-

¶17

“Case has been called several times since morning, but nobody is present on behalf of the parties. It is now 4 p.m. I have left with no option but to dismiss the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. Accordingly, application for condonation of delay as well as the appeal are dismissed in default. File be consigned to the record room.”

¶18

¶19

Civil Revision No.2650 of 2012

¶20

Thereafter, an application for restoration of the appeal was filed on 07.04.2007. However, the Court took four years and six months to decide the said application, which was dismissed on 22.11.2011. It is surprising to see that though the application for restoration of the appeal was filed while pleading that there are sufficient grounds to condone the delay, yet the Court did not discuss such grounds while dismissing the application. It is also not known, as to why the Court kept this application pending adjudication for over four years.

¶21

It would be expedient in the interest of justice to decide the appeal on merits, than to dismiss the application for restoration of the same. It is well settled by now that meritorious claims of the parties should not be left unheard.

¶22

In view of the above, this petition is accepted; the impugned order is set aside and the Appellate Court is directed to decide the application for condonation of delay along with the main appeal, on merits.

¶23

01.12.2012 ajp

¶24

(A.N.Jindal) Judge

Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and Anr. v. Jagjit Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and Anr. v. Jagjit 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

(O&M) Karan Amol Singh Vs Shri Roop Ram and Anr.

(O&M)Harjinder Singh etc. Vs Smt.Jaspal Kaur

Darshan Singh Vs Mohinder Singh

(O&M)Sarvinder Singh (C) Vs Munshi Ram etc.

Jagtar Singh Vs Piara Singh and Ors.

H.S. Bindra Vs B.S. Teji and Anr.