IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 2640 of 2011 Date of decision: 25.4.2011 Jaswant Singh … Petitioner versus Maan Singh … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. Vinod Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner ... ARVIND KUMAR, J: The present petitioner was the defendant in the suit titled 'Maan Singh v. Jaswant Singh'. The said suit was decreed on 5.6.2010. The present petitioner filed an appeal along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. The lower appellate Court vide impugned order dated 16.3.2011 passed the following order:- “ Trial Court record received. Appeal is ripe for arguments. Reply to application under Section 5 of Limitation Act be also filed and file be put up now on 31.5.2011.” Hence, this revision by the defendant. Heard. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay has been filed along with the appeal. If that be so, it is not understood as to how without condoning the delay, the appeal had been admitted and is now ripe for arguments as indicated in the impugned order. Further contention is that a prayer was made for staying of the impugned judgment and decree dated 5.6.2010 and a long date has been given and in the meantime, the C.R. No. 2640 of 2011 -2- plaintiffs are executing the decree in which warrants of possession have been issued against the petitioner. In this back-drop of the facts, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The case is remitted back to the lower appellate Court to pre-pone the date of hearing to 2.5.2011 after issuing notice to the opposite party and to decide the application for condonation of delay in accordance with law and then to proceed further accordingly. April 25, 2011 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) JS JUDGE