IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.2488 of 2007 Date of Decision:- 28.05.2008 M/s.Sant Feed Industries & anr. ....Petitioner(s) through Mr.O.P.Hoshiarpuri, Advocate. vs. Manohar Lal ....Respondent(s) through Mr.Mrigank Sharma, Advocate. *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** 1) Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? *** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 20.2.2007 passed by the learned District Judge, Ferozepur, whereby the petitioner's application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 288 days in filing of the first appeal has been dismissed and as a sequel thereto, the appeal has also fallen flat. The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs.1,54,000/- which included principal amount of Rs.1 lac and Rs.54,000/- as interest against the petitioners. This suit was based upon a pronote and receipt dated 15.4.2000. The above-stated suit was decreed in favour of the respondent-plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 15.1.2005. The petitioners, however, did not prefer appeal against the same within the period of limitation. They filed the first appeal after a belated stage along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation C.R. No.2488 of 2007 -2- Act for condonation of delay. The delay was sought to be condoned by the petitioners, primarily on the grounds that:-(i) their counsel did not inform regarding the passing of the judgment and decree dated 15.1.2005; (ii) soon thereafter petitioner No.2 remained out of country for some time and (iii) in October, 2005 only that petitioner No.2 came to know from the Halqa Patwari that the suit had been decreed against him and immediately he applied for a certified copy of the judgment and decree dated 15.1.2005 which was so received on 9.11.2005 and the appeal was preferred on November 10, 2005 along with an application for condonation of delay. The learned first appellate Court, however, has dismissed the above-stated application after observing that the plea taken by the petitioners that their counsel did not inform them about the judgment and decree of the trial Court does not inspire any confidence as the counsel who was defending them before the learned trial Court is junior to the counsel engaged by them in the appeal; petitioner No.2 resides in a village which is about 2 Kms. from Ferozepur and he being a literate person, it is unbelievable that he did not contact his counsel; and the petitioners have not been able to explain the delay of each day and that their so-called explanation lacks bona fide. Aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, learned counsel for the parties have been heard. It may be noticed here that in order to test the petitioners, bona fide, they were directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1 lac in this Court. The petitioners have deposited the said amount which has since been transferred C.R. No.2488 of 2007 -3- to the Executing Court in an F.D.R., so as to earn interest. It appears that the counsel engaged by the petitioners before the trial Court had sent a letter to intimate the decision by trial Court. However, the said letter was not allegedly received by the petitioners. Though in this era of modern technology with fast communication means, it is very difficult to believe that the petitioners' counsel informed them through a letter only, yet taking into consideration all the attending circumstances including the fact that petitioner No.2 had gone out of country for some time during the interregnum, it would be in the interest of justice that the petitioners' appeal is decided on merits, rather than dismissing on a technical ground. As the petitioners have already deposited the principal amount, it cannot be said that their prayer for condonation of delay lacks bona fide. Consequently and for the reasons aforestated, this revision petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 15.1.2005 is set aside and a sequel thereto, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act moved by the petitioner is allowed, however, subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as costs to the respondent-plaintiff. The first appellate Court is accordingly directed to decide the petitioner's appeal on merits. Keeping in view the time already spent before one or the other Forum, it is directed that the appeal shall be decided within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The parties are directed to appear before the first appellate Court on 11.7.2008. The amount of Rs.1 lac deposited by the petitioner shall C.R. No.2488 of 2007 -4- continue to be in a fixed deposit in a nationalized bank so as to earn maximum interest and its disbursement to either of the parties shall depend upon the final outcome of the first appeal. May 28, 2008 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE