Dismissed

M/S Escort Finance Limited v. Shyam Bihari Garg

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Jan 2012CR/285/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition filed over seven months after the impugned order without any pleaded grounds for delay. The Bench held the petition was liable to rejection on grounds of delay and laches and saw no jurisdictional error justifying interference.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed in limine on grounds of delay and laches.

M/S Escort Finance Limited Vs Shyam… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CR No.285 of 2012

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CIVIL REVISION NO.285 OF 2012 DATE OF DECISION: JANUARY 13, 2012

¶5

M/s. Escorts Finance Limited, New Delhi

¶6

.... Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Shyam Bihari Garg, Faridabad

¶9

.... Respondent

¶10

CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL.

¶11

¶12

PRESENT: Ms. Geeta Gulati, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

¶14

L.N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

¶15

In this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner is assailing order dated 19.05.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad whereby application moved by the petitioner for restoration of its first appeal stands dismissed.

¶16

Petitioner filed first appeal against judgment (Annexure P-3) and decree dated 13.02.2007 of the trial Court. During pendency of the said appeal, respondent was ordered to be served by substituted service by publication in newspaper. However, appellant petitioner failed to deposit the publication charges in spite of sufficient opportunities. Consequently the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 22.10.2009 Annexure P-2.

¶17

Petitioner moved application for restoration of the appeal alleging

¶18

CR No.285 of 2012

¶19

-2-

¶20

that the petitioner-appellant could not deposit the publication charges as it had become sick company and had no liquid funds

¶21

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the

¶22

case file.

¶23

At the outset, it has to be noticed that this revision petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. Impugned order dated 19.05.2011 has been challenged in the revision petition filed on 23.12.2011 i.e. more than 7 months after the passing of the impugned order. No limitation period has been specifically provided for filing revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Nevertheless any such revision petition has to be filed within reasonable period. The petitioner being aware of this fact moved CM No.1153-CII of 2012 alongwith revision petition for condonation of delay of 117 days in filing the revision petition, presuming that there is limitation period of 90 days as provided for filing revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, even in the aforesaid application, no ground, whatsoever, has been pleaded for the delay in filing the revision petition. It is thus apparent that there is no explanation for the long delay in filing the revision petition which is therefore, liable to dismissal on the ground of delay and laches. This view is particularly being taken in view of conduct of the petitioner throughout.

¶24

Petitioner's first appeal was dismissed for non-deposit of publication charges vide order dated 22.10.2009. Restoration application was filed on 25.10.2010 as per certified copy of the impugned order i.e. one year after the dismissal of the appeal. Consequently the said restoration application

¶25

CR No.285 of 2012

¶26

-3-

¶27

was also barred by limitation. Impugned order does not reveal that any application for condonation of delay was made on any ground. It is thus manifest that the petitioner walks into the court as per its whims and fancies. The petitioner did not deposit publication charges in spite of three effective opportunities spreading over nine months. Consequently the lower appellate court was left with no option but to dismiss the appeal on this ground. The plea that the petitioner company had become sick and therefore could not deposit the publication charges cannot be accepted to restore the appeal. The petitioner before dismissal of the appeal did not even make a plea to this effect. The appeal could not be kept pending indefinitely for deposit of publication charges for service of respondent.

¶28

For the reasons aforesaid, I find that there is no sufficient ground for restoration of the first appeal and, therefore, restoration application of the petitioner has been rightly dismissed by the lower appellate Court. There is no infirmity, much less illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in impugned order of the lower appellate Court so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is meritless and is accordingly dismissed in limine.

¶29

(L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE

¶30

13.01.2012 'raj'

M/S Escort Finance Limited v. Shyam Bihari Garg

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Escort Finance Limited v. Shyam Bihari Garg

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

Ritu Vohra Vs Sanjeev Vohra

Baljit Singh Vs Gulab Singh and Ors.

Rachpal Singh Vs Harbans Singh etc.

Balwan Singh Vs Inder Singh

Zora Singh Vs Harpreet Singh

Municipal Council Rewari Vs Munna Lal and Ors.