IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 1346 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 10.3.2009 Punjab State Electricity Board and others ....Petitioners Versus Baldev Krishan Kausal ...Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. P.S. Thiara, Advocate for the petitioners. RAJESH BINDAL J **** The challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the learned Court below whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners has been dismissed on account of delay. Briefly the facts are that the respondent filed a suit for declaration to the effect that his seniority has been wrongly fixed by the petitioners. The suit was filed on May 20, 1993. The petitioners were represented by a counsel before the trial Court. However, on account of non-appearance by either the counsel for the petitioners or any of the representatives of the petitioners, they were proceeded against exparte on May 7, 1999. The proceedings continued and an ex-parte decree was passed on March 26, 2004. The appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court was filed on March 11, 2006, after a delay of nearly 2 years. The ground taken for filing belated appeal was that the counsel who was engaged by the petitioners never informed them about the proceedings in the case. The cause shown by the petitioners was not found to be sufficient by the learned Court below to condone huge delay of 2 years in filing the appeal. The application for condonation of delay having been dismissed the petitioners are before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that though there is lapse on part of counsel engaged by the petitioners for not appearing before the Court below and further not informing the petitioners about the decree having been passed against them, but still only on that account the petitioners should not be made to suffer as for condonation of delay the respondent could very well be compensated with costs, as the appeal filed by the petitioners has merits and the judgment and decree of the trial Court being perverse is liable to be set aside. However, I do not find any merit in the submission made. Learned Court below has considered the claim made by the petitioners for condonation of delay on the basis of the evidence led by the parties. It transpired from the statement of AW1 that apart from the advocate, one official of the Board was also -2- appointed to assist the advocate in the case and even he also failed to keep track of the case. After the passing of the judgment and decree in favour of the respondent even a legal notice was also sent by the respondent on September 16 2005, to the petitioners. Regarding that the petitioners in their evidence showed ignorance. Letters Ex.R3, R4, R6, R8 and R 10 have been placed on record by the respondent in his evidence to contest the application for condonation of delay, clearly showing therefrom that in July 2005 the petitioners had knowledge about the passing of judgment and decree in his favour and to plead ignorance thereof for getting the delay condoned by filing the appeal in March 2006 was clearly misstatement of fact. There is lapse on the part of the petitioners and they had not been pursuing their case diligently. After passing of the judgment and decree, right had accrued in favour of the respondent/plaintiff, which should not be taken away lightly. The cause shown by the petitioners to seek condonation of delay of about two years cannot by any stretch of imagination be said to be sufficient. It is not that each days' delay is required to be explained. When the delay is about two years, the party seeking condonation of delay is certainly required to explain the same especially keeping in view the fact that they had knowledge about the filing of suit as it was during the pendency thereof that they were proceeded against exparte, after filing of written statement and even after the passing of decree had knowledge about the passing of the decree. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the petition, the same is dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) 10.3.2009 JUDGE Reema