Madan Mohan Singh (Dead) through His L.R. Anita Salaria Vs Gian Singh & Ors.

The present revision petition has been filed by the plaintiff under Art i cle 227 of the Constitution o f India, for setting aside the impugned order dated 20.07.2015 (Anne x ure P-2) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurdarpur, in C ivil Appeal No. 89/2005, titled as ‘Mada n Mohan Singh vs. Gian Sing h Etc.’ whereby the petitioner- plaintiff’s a pplication for restoration of aforesaid appeal was dismissed.

¶18

RISHU KATARIA 2025.07.25 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶19

CR-945-2017 (O&M) -2-

¶20

Learned counsel for the petiti o ner, inter alia, submits that the learned L o wer Appellate Court had not a p preciated the fact that the late father of t he petitioner was an old ma n of 74/75 years age and was suffering f rom various old age-related d i seases. As such, he could not properly i n struct his counsel in the Court below. Father of the petitioner had expir e d on 20.04.2013 because of p r olonged ailment. As such, he could not f ile the application for restorati o n of the appeal in time due to his ailmen t and infirm health. It is acco r dingly prayed that the present petition be allowed, and the impugned or d ers of the courts below be set aside.

¶21

Per Contra, learned cou n sel for respondent No. 2 vehementl y opposes the submissions of le a rned counsel for the petitioner and submi t s that there is unexplained de l ay of more than 18 months in filing the a pplication for restoration of th e appeal by the petitioner. Even the applic a tion for restoration of the main a ppeal as well as the application for condo n ation of delay in filing the s a id application have not been appended w ith the present revision petitio n . All that has been stated is that father of t h e petitioner was unable to instr u ct his counsel. The same shall not consti t ute any cause for condonati o n of such an inordinate and extraordin a ry delay of 18 months in filing the restoration application. According l y, learned counsel for respond e nt No. 2 prays for dismissal of the presen t revision petition.

¶22

No other argument has been r a ised by learned counsel for the parties. I h ave heard learned counsel and c arefully gone through the case file. I find n o merit in the submissions ma d e on behalf of the petitioner.

¶23

RISHU KATARIA 2025.07.25 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶24

CR-945-2017 (O&M) -3-

¶25

Brief facts of the case are t h at father of the petitioner had filed a suit for declaration which was dis m issed by the learned trial Court vide judg m ent and decree dated 19.02 . 2005 (Annexure P-5). Being aggrieved, the father of the petitioner had filed Civil Appeal No. 89/2005 dated 02.0 6 .2005 (Annexure P-1), titled as ‘Madan Mohan Singh vs. Gian Singh Etc.’ against the aforesaid judgme n t and decree dated 19.02.2005 along with an application for condonation delay in filing the said appeal. As father of the petitioner had failed to put in appearance before the learned L o wer Appellate Court, the said appeal was dismissed for nonprosecutio n vide order dated 12.5.2010. T h ereafter, father of the petitioner had filed a n application for restoration of the said appeal on 07.11.2011. The said a p plication for restoration of the main appeal was accompanied with an a p plication seeking condonation of delay. Vide the impugned order date d 20.07.2015 (Annexure P-2), th e said applications have been dismissed.

¶26

Admittedly, the only reaso n cited in the application for condonati o n of delay was that ‘the applic a nt could not inform his counsel about his illness and was unable to attend the Court’ . It is the case of the petitioner that his father could not file the application for restoration within lim i tation as he was gravely ill; a n d had subsequently expired on 20.4.2013. Firstly, nothing has been place d on record by the petitioner to remotely i n dicate any illness of his father. The assertion of the petitioner appears to be doubtful as the Civil Appe a l was dismissed on 12.5.2010; restoration application was filed on 7.1 1 .2011; whereas father of the petitioner e xpired three years thereafter on 20.4.2013.

¶27

RISHU KATARIA 2025.07.25 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶28

CR-945-2017 (O&M) -4-

¶29

Even otherwise, needless to say the same constitutes no ground fo r condonation of such an extrao r dinary and inordinate delay of more than 18 months in filing the applicati o n for restoration, which, as per law, is to be filed within 30 days fro m the date of dismissal order. However, n o cogent explanation was give n by the petitioner as to why the same coul d not be filed within the limitati o n.

¶30

It is well-settled proposition o f law that each day's delay has to be expl a ined in a mathematical manner w hich has not been done by the petitioner. In the present case, no cogent r eason or plausible explanation has been f u rnished by the petitioner for co n donation of such an inordinate and unexp l ained delay of more than 18 m onths in filing the restoration applicatio n . Moreover, condonation of s u ch an inordinate/extraordinary delay in fi l ing the restoration application would tantamount to declaring the law o f limitation obsolete/redundant, without any justification. The explanatio n furnished by the petitioner s h ows that the matter has been pursued w i th utmost casualness. It is the b o unden duty of every litigant to pursue his case diligently; and it is also th e bounden duty of this Court to ensure tha t justice inures to both parties concerned. It is my view that grave inju s tice will caused to the respond e nt in case the matter is restored at this bel a ted stage. It has been recently h eld by the Delhi High Court in case of Moddus Media Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s. Scone Exhibition Pvt. Ltd., (Delhi), Law Finder Doc Id # 887148, th a t:

¶31

11. The litigant owes a dut y to be vigilant of his rights and is also expected to be equally vigilant about the judicial proceedings pending in the court of law against him or initiated at his instance. The litigant cannot be permitted to cast the entire blame on the Advocate. It appears that the blame is being attributed on t he Advocate with a view to get

¶32

RISHU KATARIA 2025.07.25 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶33

CR-945-2017 (O&M)

¶34

-5-

¶35

the delay condoned and av o id the decree. After filing the civil suit or written stateme n t, the litigant cannot go off to sleep and wake up from a de e p slumber after passing a long time as if the court is stor a ge of the suits filed by such negligent litigants. Putting the entire blame upon the advocate and trying to mak e it out as if they were totally unaware of the nature or sig n ificance of the proceedings is a theory put forth by the appellant/applicant/defendant company, which cannot be a c cepted and ought not to have been accepted. The appellant is not a simple or rustic illiterate person but a Privat e Limited Company managed by educated businessmen, who know very well where their interest lies. The litigant is to be vigilant and pursue his case diligently on all the hearings. If the litigant does not appear in the court and leaves the c a se at the mercy of his counsel without caring as to what di ff erent frivolous pleas/defences being taken by his counsel f or adjournments is bound to suffer. If the litigant does not turn up to obtain the copies o f judgment and orders of the court so as to find out what orders are passed by the court is liable to bear the consequences.”

¶36

I am in complete agreement w ith the above view expressed by the Del h i High Court. In the present ca s e, as already noticed above, the reasons g i ven by the petitioner for d e lay in filing the restoration applicatio n , do not constitute sufficient ca u se.

¶37