Allowed

Tarsem Singh v. Kamlesh Kumari and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Sept 2014CR/2283/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in revision under Article 227 set aside the District Judge's order dismissing an application for condonation of delay. The Court found the delay was excusable due to illness and directed the trial court to decide the appeal on merits.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 12.10.2012 set aside; application for condonation of delay allowed subject to payment of Rs. 5,000/- as costs; District Judge directed to decide appeal on merits.

Tarsem Singh Vs Kamlesh Kumari and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

231

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CR No.2283 of 2013 Date of decision: September 02, 2014

Tarsem Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

Kamlesh Kumari and another

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

¶10

Present: Mr.Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

None for respondent No.1.

¶12

Service of respondent No.2 dispensed with on 19.11.2013.

¶13

¶14

INDERJIT SINGH, J.

¶15

Petitioner Tarsem Singh has filed this revision petition against Kamlesh Kumari and Hardev respondents under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 12.10.2012 passed by learned District Judge, Gurdaspur, dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 15.02.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurdaspur vide which learned trial Court allowed the application of respondent No.1 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC only on account of the fact that the same was filed belated and refused to exercise its vested jurisdiction regarding condonation of

¶16

VINEET GULATIdelay. 2014.09.10 10:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶17

CR No.2283 of 2013

¶18

-2-

¶19

Notice of motion was issued but none appeared on behalf of respondent No.1 and service of respondent No.2 was dispensed with.

¶20

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record.

¶21

From the record, I find that learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurdaspur, vide order dated 15.02.2011 allowed the application filed by plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2. Aggrieved from this order, appeal along with application for condonation of delay was filed on 08.04.2011 and learned District Judge, Gurdaspur dismissed the application for condonation of delay vide order dated 12.10.2012.

¶22

From the record, I further find that the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was filed along with the appeal on the ground that after passing of the order, applicant fell ill due to typhoid. He contacted his counsel on 08.03.2011 and applied for the copy of order, which was supplied to him on 21.03.2011. When he again felt some relief from ailment, he filed miscellaneous civil appeal on 08.04.2011, which means that there is little delay in filing the appeal. In no way, it can be stated that applicant was negligent nor at this stage, without taking evidence, it can be held that he was not ill or his version is concocted one. There is nothing on the record to show any malafide nor there is anything to show that applicant, in any way, is going to be benefitted by filing the appeal late. Rather, stay application has been decided

¶23

VINEET GULATI 2014.09.10 10:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶24

CR No.2283 of 2013

¶25

-3-

¶26

against the applicant and aggrieved from that, he has filed the appeal. The order dated 12.10.2012 passed by learned District Judge, Gurdaspur dismissing the application for condonation of delay on technical grounds, is not as per law. The Court is to have the liberal approach by satisfying itself for sufficient reason to condone the delay. If the delay application is not accepted, the present petitioner/applicant will suffer irreparable loss.

¶27

In view of the above discussion, the impugned order dated 12.10.2012 passed by learned District Judge, Gurdaspur is not as per law and the same is set aside. Therefore, finding merit in the revision petition, the same is allowed. The application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is allowed subject to payment of `5,000/- as costs. Learned District Judge, Gurdaspur is directed to decide the appeal on merits, as per law, after registering it on its original number and after giving opportunity of being heard.

¶28

September 02, 2014 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE

¶29

VINEET GULATI 2014.09.10 10:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Tarsem Singh v. Kamlesh Kumari and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tarsem Singh v. Kamlesh Kumari and Anr.

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

Balwinder Singh Vs Gurdip Singh and Ors.

Babu Singh Vs Khushpal Singh and Ors.

Rakesh Kumar Vs Municipal Corporation, Patiala & Anr.

Fauja Singh Vs Samitter Singh

Swaran Chand Vs Balwinder Singh & Anr.

Ranjeev Dahuja Vs Ambika Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.