This order condones delays in re-filing and filing the second appeal in a civil suit for compensation arising from murder. The appellant's regular second appeal against concurrent findings of fact was dismissed.
Applications for condonation of delay are allowed; the regular second appeal is 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.
-1-
RSA No.1963 of 2016 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.1963 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Order:17.07.2018
Rajan
..Appellant
Versus
Guddi Devi and others
..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J(Oral)
C.M.No.5210-11-C of 2016
Prayer in these applications is for condonation of delay of 97 days in re-filing and 169 days in filing the appeal.
For reasons mentioned in these applications, which are supported by an affidavit, the delay of 97 days in re-filing and 169 days in filing the appeal are condoned.
Applications are allowed.
MAIN
Defendant no.6-appellant is in the regular second appeal against the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the courts below while decreeing a suit for compensation/damages on account of murder of Des Raj, who was husband of plaintiff no.1, father of plaintiff nos.2 and 3 and son of plaintiff no.4. It is not disputed that in a criminal case registered, defendant-appellant has been convicted.
Both the courts after appreciation of evidence available on the
Naresh Kumar 2018.07.24 12:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
-2-
RSA No.1963 of 2016 (O&M)
file have recorded a concurrent findings of fact that the plaintiff had led sufficient evidence to prove that late Sh. Des Raj was murdered by the defendant-appellant along with others.
Although, learned counsel for the appellant made sincere attempt, however, could not point out any substantive error in the appreciation of evidence or any perversity in the findings of the learned courts below.
Hence, there is no good ground to interfere with the concurrent
findings of fact arrived at by the courts below.
The regular second appeal is dismissed.
July 17, 2018 (ANIL KSHETARPAL) nt JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No
Naresh Kumar 2018.07.24 12:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to condone delay in re-filing and filing the second appeal.
Rajan
Guddi Devi and others
ANIL KSHETARPAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
