CR No.7399 of 2010 (O&M) -1- ***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.7399 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:15.11.2010. Naib Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus Chief Administrator and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Arun Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioners. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This revision petition is directed against the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali dated 24.02.2010 by which an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 [for short “the Act”] for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal was dismissed and consequently the appeal was also dismissed. The plaintiffs/petitioners had filed a suit for declaration that they have a right to a plot being oustees. The said suit, however, was dismissed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), SAS Nagar, Mohali vide its judgment and decree dated 03.05.2008. The petitioners filed an appeal against the said judgment and decree on 07.06.2009. At that time, it was brought to their notice that the date of pronouncing the order has been erroneously mentioned as 03.05.2008 on the decree sheet, therefore, they moved an application under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short “CPC”] which was allowed on 30.08.2008 and the copy of the amended decree sheet was obtained on CR No.7399 of 2010 (O&M) -2- ***** 14.05.2009. It is alleged that in the month of September 2007, appellant No.2 Naib Singh met with an accident and, therefore, due to his immobility the appeal could not be filed in time and when he recovered from the injuries in the month of March 2009, the present appeal was filed. It was, thus, alleged that the delay in filing of the appeal is due to sufficient cause. The learned First Appellate Court, on the pleadings of the parties, framed issues and allowed the parties to lead their evidence. After evaluation of the available evidence on record, it was found that Naib Singh – appellant No.2 was alleged to have suffered injuries in September 2007, but no medical evidence has been placed on record. There were two other appellants besides Naib Singh who could have filed the appeal, but there is no explanation why they did not file the appeal. Even if, for the shake of arguments, it was assumed that Naib Singh had recovered from the injuries in the month of March 2009, but the appeal was filed on 07.06.2009 without extending any explanation, although the period of limitation is 30 days for filing appeal from the date of judgment and decree of the Trial Court. Thus, the learned First Appellate Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay finding it to be without sufficient cause. After dismissal of the application, the petitioners had filed an application under Section 114 of the CPC seeking review, but the same was also dismissed on 20.09.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the delay was not intentional on the part of the petitioners who were pursuing their litigation for the purpose of allotment of plot under the oustees quota, but he has miserably failed to explain as to why the other two appellants did not file the appeal in time and even if it is presumed that Naib Singh (appellant No.2) had suffered injuries in the month of September 2007, there is no medical evidence in this regard produced on record. There is a huge gap which could not be filled up by the petitioners with any cogent explanation which could be believed by this Court. Moreover, if Naib Singh had recovered from his injuries in the month of March 2009, then why the appeal has been filed in the month of June 2009. Again the CR No.7399 of 2010 (O&M) -3- ***** petitioners have failed to give any satisfactory reply in this regard. In view thereof, I do not find any error in the order passed by the learned First Appellate Court dated 24.02.2010 or in the order dated 20.09.2010 by which the application filed under Section 5 of the Act and the application filed under Section 114 of the CPC have been dismissed respectively. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and as such, the same is hereby dismissed in limine, however, without any order as to costs. November 15, 2010. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE