C.R. No.5103 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.5103 of 2010 Date of Decision: 06.12.2010. Amar Singh .……Petitioner Versus Gram Panchayat and another ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Ms. Vanita Sapra Kataria, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Garg, Advocate for the respondents. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) This is revision petition by plaintiff-Amar Singh under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner has filed suit against respondents i.e Gram Panchayat of Village Jheeta Kalan and Gram Panchayat of village Rampura. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar vide order dated 10.06.2008 Annexure P-4 dismissed plaintiff's application for temporary injunction. Plaintiff preferred appeal against the said order. The appeal was filed on 08.05.2009 i.e after delay of almost 10 months excluding the limitation period. Petitioner moved application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of said delay in filing the appeal. Learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar vide impugned order dated 30.07.2010 Annexure P-5 has dismissed the said application for condonation of delay. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has filed the instant revision petition challenging order Annexure P-4 of the trial Court and order Annexure P-5 of the C.R. No.5103 of 2010 -2- appellate Court. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner's counsel in the trial Court did not inform the petitioner about passing of the impugned order Annexure P-4 by the trial Court and also did not inform the petitioner that the case was fixed for his evidence and last opportunity for his evidence had been granted for 01.05.2009. Feeling dissatisfied with the said counsel, the petitioner changed his counsel and thereupon the new counsel after inspecting the file told the petitioner about the impugned order and other proceedings of the suit and thereupon the appeal was filed. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, contended that the petitioner himself had been regularly appearing before the trial Court as per his own version and he was also taking note of the next dates of hearing and, therefore, it cannot be said that plaintiff-petitioner was not aware of the order Annexure P-4 passed by the trial Court. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Long delay of almost 10 months cannot be condoned on vague, general and specious ground that the counsel did not inform the petitioner about the passing of order Annexure P-4. The petitioner himself had been attending the trial Court and had also been noting the next dates of hearing. If long delay of 10 months is condoned on such specious ground, the law of limitation would be rendered infructuous. Lower appellate Court has taken a reasonable view of the matter. Impugned order Annexure P-5 of the lower appellate Court cannot be said to be illegal or suffering from any jurisdictional error so as to C.R. No.5103 of 2010 -3- warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, finding no merit in the instant revision petition, the same is hereby dismissed. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 06.12.2010. A. Kaundal