C.R.No.6123 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Decided on July 21,2010. Sukhdev Chand and another --Petitioners vs. Kapura @ Kapur Singh and others --Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Parminder Singh-I,Advocate,for the petitioners Mr.Abhishek Arora,Advocate,for respondent No1. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J, This revision petition is directed against the order of learned Addl.District Judge, Ludhiana, dated 5.8.2009, by which an application filed by the petitioners under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short the Act), has been dismissed. In brief, the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they are owners in possession of land measuring 1B-13B-7B that is to the extent of 2/9th share of the total land measuring 4B-0B-0B comprised in Khewat No.141, Khatauni No.179 Khasra No.252, 396, as per jamabandi for the year 1990-91situated in the revenue estate of village Ajnoud, Tehsil and District Ludhiana. The Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana,vide its judgment dated 13.3.2006 dismissed the suit. C.R.No.6123 of 2009 (O&M) 2 Admittedly, certified copy of the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 13.3.2006 was applied by the appellant/petitioner on 14.3.2006 which was delivered to him after 24.4.2006. Limitation to file appeal was up to 24.5.2006, but the same was filed on 12.1.2007 after a delay of 7-1/2 months. The reason for the delay was assigned by the appellant that he is 70 years of age and was admitted in a hospital where he got treatment from 18.3.2006 to 5.1.2007. In order to prove his contention, he placed on record a Medical Certificate dated 6.1.2007 (Mark-A) issued by SAI SEVA & UROLOGY CENTRE, Opposite Boat Club, Above Ronak Travels, Hira Ghat Road, Ulhasnagar. On the contrary, the respondents have relied upon documents Ex. R-1 (Copy of summons) and document Ex. R-2 (copy of vakalatnama) dated 24.11.2206 and 16.12.2006 respectively to contend that Kapura respondent had filed another suit against Sukhdev Chand in the Court of Sh. R.K.Mittal, Civil Judge (Junior Division) Khanna, in which the petitioners had received summons on 28.11.2006 and had appeared in the Court through his counsel on 16.12.2006. It is submitted that the petitioner was never admitted as an indoor patient in the hospital, at Ulhasnagar, nor any effort has been made to prove the Medical Certificate (Mark A) by examining the doctor, who had issued the same. Therefore, the said document is a forged document and cannot be given any credence. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. The facts are not much in dispute insofar as delay of 7-1/2 months is concerned. It is not disputed by learned counsel for the parties C.R.No.6123 of 2009 (O&M) 3 that the petitioners had appeared in the other suit filed by Kapura at Khanna. There is no evidence on record to prove the document Mark A, nor there is any evidence that the petitioner was having treatment from the hospital at Ulhasnagar as an indoor patient. The Medical Certificate only refers to the treatment of diabities and hypertension which cannot help the petitioner in condoning the delay he was prevented by a sufficient cause in not preferring the appeal within time. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. July 21,2010 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge