IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 592 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 3.2.2009 Kulwant Singh ....Petitioner Versus Bikram Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. Hem Raj Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner. RAJESH BINDAL J **** The challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar dated September 9, 2008 whereby the application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was dismissed. Briefly the facts are that a suit filed by the respondents for possession on the basis of agreement to sell executed by the father of petitioner in favour of respondent/plaintiff was decreed in their favour. In execution the Court appointed a Local Commissioner to get the sale deed executed. It is after execution of the sale deed that the present petitioner filed appeal along with application for condonation of delay on May 23, 2006 against judgment and decree dated 16.9.2004. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that their father had expired on December 9, 2005 and they did not have the knowledge about the pendency of the suit or the same having been decreed by the learned Court below. Even no notice in execution proceedings was received by them. The petitioner came to know about the decree and its execution only on May 2, 2006 when the respondent/plaintiff loudly spoke in the village that he got the sale deed registered through the commission of the Court and will take possession of the land. He further submitted that the cause shown by the petitioner for late filing of the appeal was sufficient for condonation of delay and by condoning the delay, the appeal field by them should be heard on merit. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the present petition. It is a case where the father of the petitioner, who was the vendor in the agreement to sell executed with respondent/plaintiff had been appearing in the proceedings in the suit initially. He even filed written statement. Thereafter he stopped appearing. As a result thereof, the decree was passed against him. In the execution proceedings also he had been appearing before the Court and even filed cross objections. But later on he did C.R. No. 592 of 2009 (O&M) -2- not appear. The decree was passed against the father of the petitioner on September 16, 2004. He expired on December 9, 2005 and during their period he had been appearing in the execution proceedings. Even, if the decree was initially passed against the father of the petitioner ex-parte on account of his non appearance in the proceedings after filing of written statement still the fact remains that he never filed any appeal even after coming to know about passing of decree against him which was being executed by the Court. The petitioner cannot now take up the issue after his death to seek permission of the Court to file the appeal after condoning huge delay of about 2 years in filing the appeal. The cause shown by the petitioners is not found to be sufficient for condonation of delay. Learned Court below has not committed any illegality in passing the order dismissing the application for condonation of delay as the case set up by them for seeking condonation could not be made out. Rather, on the other side it was found that it is a case where the father of petitioner had full knowledge about the pendency of civil suit as well as execution proceedings. For the reasons mentioned above, the present revision petition is dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) 3.2.2009 JUDGE Reema