RSA No.833 of 2010 (O & M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.833 of 2010 (O & M) Date of Decision: 14.02.2011 Smt. Rajbala ……Appellant Versus Registrar, Maharishi Dayanand University and another …...Respondents Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Ajit Sihag, Advocate for the appellant. L.N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) CM No.2299-C of 2010 Heard. This is application for condonation of delay of 281 days in re- filing the appeal. It is alleged in the application that after Registry returned the appeal with some objections, the objections were removed, but Clerk of the counsel misplaced the brief in the bunch of decided cases. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant-appellant and perused the case file. The aforesaid averment made in the application even if taken at face value is not sufficient to condone the long delay of more than 9 months in re-filing the appeal. In fact this excuse is being raised almost in every case to seek condonation of long delay in re-filing the case. Such vague, general and specious averment cannot be accepted for condonation of long delay of 281 days in re-filing the appeal. It does not make out any ground much less sufficient ground for condoning the said RSA No.833 of 2010 (O & M) - 2 - delay. If such averment is accepted to condone such long delay, the law of limitation would be rendered completely infructuous. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant application which is accordingly dismissed. Main Appeal. Since application for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal has been dismissed, the appeal is liable to be dismissed on this ground. However, even on merit, the appellant cannot succeed. Plaintiff-Rajbala, having almost failed in both the Courts below, has filed the instant second appeal. Case of the plaintiff-appellant is that she appeared in improvement examination of Mathematics BA Part-II in April 1993 conducted by defendant No.2-University under Roll No.43933. However, her result of the said examination had not been declared by the defendants inspite of notice dated 25.01.1999 served on the defendants and information/clarification supplied on 27.05.1999. Accordingly, the plaintiff sought declaration that her result of aforesaid examination be communicated to her by the defendants. Defendants resisted the suit and broadly denied the plaint allegations. It was alleged that in the notice, the plaintiff alleged her Roll number as 43938, but the said Roll number pertained to one Madhu Bala, who remained absent in the said examination. Vide letters dated 15.02.1999 and 02.04.1999, defendants asked the plaintiff to supply correct particulars, but she failed to do so. Various other pleas were also raised. RSA No.833 of 2010 (O & M) - 3 - Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Charkhi Dadri vide judgment and decree dated 10.05.2006 dismissed the plaintiff’s suit. First appeal preferred by plaintiff has been partly allowed by learned District Judge, Bhiwani vide judgment and decree dated 13.01.2009. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has filed the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellant emphatically contended that the lower appellate Court has returned the finding that the plaintiff did appear in the examination in question, but relief of declaration of plaintiff’s result of the said examination has been declined as records of the said examination have since been destroyed by the defendants on expiry of requisite period. However, learned counsel for the appellant is unable to explain as to how defendants can now be directed to declare the result of alleged examination when records thereof are not available with the defendants. Court cannot pass a decree which is incapable of being executed. For this situation, the plaintiff-appellant has herself to blame. She allegedly appeared in the examination in April 1993, but for the first time, she approached the defendants for declaration of her result vide notice dated 25.01.1999 i.e after almost 6 years. Defendants destroyed the records after five years. There is no explanation why the plaintiff- appellant remained silent for almost six years. On the contrary, it would indicate that the plaintiff actually might not have appeared in the examination and she approached the defendants after destruction of the records of the examination. The suit is also time barred having been filed RSA No.833 of 2010 (O & M) - 4 - more than six years after the plaintiff allegedly appeared in the examination. There cannot be said to be continuing cause of action as sought to be canvassed on behalf of the appellant. The suit was filed at Charkhi Dadri, but Court at Charkhi Dadri had no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. The plaintiff allegedly appeared in the examination at Rohtak. Defendant-University is also at Rohtak. Consequently, no part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of Court at Charkhi Dadri. Merely because the plaintiff is resident of Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, Court at Charkhi Dadri would not acquire territorial jurisdiction to try the suit, when no part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the said Court. Learned Trial Court brushed aside the said objection of the defendants by observing that the case being at final stage, it would not be proper to return the plaint to the plaintiff. However, even for this situation, the plaintiff herself is to be blamed because the defendants raised this objection in the written statement itself i.e. at the earlier stage. Thus examined from any angle, no further relief can be granted to the plaintiff appellant in the instant second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine, being devoid of merit. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 14.02.2011 A.kaundal