RSA No.4698 of 2009 (O & M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.4698 of 2009 (O & M) Date of Decision: 12.01.2010. Smt. Gina and others .……Appellants Versus Smt. Panbai and others ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. S. K. Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellants. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) CM No.14123-C of 2009 For reasons mentioned in the application, which is accompanied by affidavit, delay of 2 days in filing the appeal is condoned. CM No.14122-C of 2009 This is application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for condonation of delay of 539 days in refiling the appeal. Heard. It is pleaded that when the appeal was returned with some objections by the Registry for the third time in July, 2008, the counsel informed the appellants that the appeal was to be refiled within 7 days, but the appellants instructed the counsel to keep the file pending due to some reasons. It is also alleged that the counsel specifically explained to the appellants that the delay which would occur on their part, would have to be explained. However, the appellants instructed the counsel only in last week of November, 2009 for refiling the appeal and thereupon the appeal was refiled on 17.12.2009. It is manifest from the aforesaid assertion in the application that there is no ground for condoning the long delay of 539 days in refiling the appeal. No reason has been mentioned in the application as to why RSA No.4698 of 2009 (O & M) -2- the appellants instructed their counsel to keep the file pending since July, 2008 till November, 2009. It appears that the appellants have taken the Court for a ride, thinking that the delay would be condoned just for the asking. The application is compeletly frivolous and meritless and is accordingly dismissed. Main Appeal. Since delay in refiling the appeal has not been condoned, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Even on merits, the appellants have no case. The appellants are defendants Nos.5 to 12, 14 and 15, who have remained unsuccessful in both the Courts below. Mam Raj plaintiff since deceased (now represented by respondent Nos.1 to 3) filed suit against appellants and proforma respondent Nos.4 to 7 alleging that plaintiff's ancestor had given the suit land to defendants' ancestor on Dholi for performing prayers and other religious activities and in lieu of services rendered by them, but for many years before filing of the suit, the defendants stopped performing the religious activities and they were residing elsewhere. Defendant No.15 is also a Government servant. No religious activities were being performed by the defendants and, therefore, defendants ceased to be Dholidhars of the suit land and were also not in possession thereof. On the other hand, the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land as owner. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 and 13 were given up. The trial Court decreed the suit against the remaining defendants. Lower Appellate Court has upheld the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Perusal of the file reveals that no evidence was led by the defendants in support of their plea that they continued to perform religious ceremonies for which Dholi was created. The defendants also did not lead any evidence to depict that they are in possession of the suit land. The plaintiff's evidence stood unrebutted. Consequently, it was rightly held by RSA No.4698 of 2009 (O & M) -3- both the Courts below that plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land and defendant Nos.5 to 12, 14 and 15 had ceased to be Dholidhars of their share of the suit land. There is no infirmity in the said finding which is based on appreciation of evidence. At the cost of repetition, it may be highlighted that the defendants did not lead any evidence whatsoever in support of their version and, therefore, plaintiff's evidence being cogent and reliable was rightly believed by the Courts below. Learned counsel for the appellants relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Dharam Vir versus Bahadur Singh and another, 2007(1) PLR 176 laying down rights and duties of Dholidhar. However, this judgment has no bearing on the instant case, when the defendants-appellants have ceased to be Dholidhars of the suit land as per evidence on record. No substantial question of law arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is completely without any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 12.01.2010 A. Kaundal