Civil Revision No. 6361 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6361 of 2009 Date of decision : February 22, 2010 Santokh Singh ....Petitioner versus Baldev Singh ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Vijay Rana, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Vishal Ranjan, Advocate, for the respondent L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Respondent Baldev Singh filed suit against petitioner Santokh Singh. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tarn Taran vide judgment and decree dated 27.3.2006, Annexure P/1, decreed the suit. The defendant preferred first appeal in this Court. It was filed on 23.5.2006. It was returned with some objections and refiled. However, ultimately section 39 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 was amended by virtue of Punjab Ordinance No. 11 of 26.8.2006 and in view of said amendment, the appeal lies to District Judge. Consequently, Registry of this Court returned the appeal vide office report dated 25.9.2006 for presentation before the District Judge. The appellant accordingly presented the appeal before the District Judge on 23.10.2006. However, learned Additional District Judge Civil Revision No. 6361 of 2009 -2- (Fast Track Court) Tarn Taran vide impugned order dated 20.8.2009 dismissed the appeal as time barred holding that there is no sufficient ground for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that when first appeal against judgment and decree of the trial court was filed in this Court, the appeal could be filed in this Court only but by way of amendment of section 39 of the Punjab Courts Act made vide Ordinance no. 11 of 26.8.2006, the appeal thereafter lies before the District Judge. After return of the appeal by the Registry of this Court vide office report dated 25.9.2006, the appeal was filed within one month before the District Judge. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the petitioner has not explained each day's delay in filing the appeal before the District Judge because after return of the appeal by the Registry of this Court vide office report dated 25.9.2006, the appeal could have been filed before the District Judge on 26.9.2006 or 27.9.2006. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. The approach of lower appellate court is apparently illegal, irrational and unsustainable. It has been observed by the lower appellate court in the impugned order that the appeal filed before this Court on 23.5.2006 was also time barred although it has also been observed that limitation period for filing appeal in this Court was 60 days. Judgment and decree of the trial court are dated 27.3.2006. Time was spent in obtaining certified copy thereof from 29.3.2006 till 12.4.2006. The appeal filed on 23.5.2006 in this Court was, therefore, not time barred when the limitation period was 60 days. After Civil Revision No. 6361 of 2009 -3- appeal was returned by this Court, in view of amendment made in the Punjab Courts Act after filing of the appeal in this Court, the appellant/petitioner presented the appeal before the District Judge within one month. The said time taken by the petitioner in filing the appeal before the District Judge cannot be said to be unreasonably long. The lower appellate court should not have dismissed the appeal as time barred. At best some costs could have been imposed on the appellant-petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 20.8.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Tarn Taran is set aside and the appeal is remanded to the said court for decision on merits. Alleged delay in filing the appeal is condoned subject to payment of Rs 1000/- as costs precedent by the petitioner to the respondent. Parties are directed to appear before the lower appellate court on 29.3.2010. ( L.N. Mittal ) February 22, 2010 Judge 'tiwana'