Civil Revision No. 3240 of 2009 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3240 of 2009 Date of decision : 2.3.2010 Improvement Trust, Moga Petitioner Versus Pawan Kumar Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Ms. Meenaxi Dogra, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. P.L.Singla, Advocate for the respondent. S. D. ANAND, J. The learned Appellate Authority, vide order under challenge, declined to entertain an appeal filed by the petitioner herein after a delay of about 51 days. The petitioner herein had filed a petition for ejectment of the respondent-tenant from the premises under reference. The plea came to be negatived by the learned Rent Controller, vide order dated 1.2.2008. The learned Rent Controller also directed the petitioner herein to refund the rent received by it in excess from the respondent-tenant. It is apparent, from a perusal of the order under challenge itself, that petitioner herein applied for the issuance of certified copy of the order on 25.2.2008. Thus, the application for certified copy was filed after the period of limitation was over. The certified copy was prepared on 5.3.2008. However, it is only on Civil Revision No. 3240 of 2009 -2- *** 21.4.2008 that copy was received on behalf of the petitioner herein. The appeal came to be filed on 24.4.2008. The petitioner herein applied to the Appellate Authority for condonation of 51 days delay on an averment that the real import of the judgment rendered by the learned Rent Controller was not noticed by the petitioner herein which (petitioner) was throughout under the impression that the ejectment petition had been dismissed as the respondent-tenant had tendered the arrears of rent. The delay in the relevant behalf was averred to be on account of bonafide error on the part of the petitioner herein. I have not been able to persuade myself to find any fault in the impugned order granted by the learned Appellate Authority negativing the plea raised on behalf of the petitioner for condonation of 51 days delay in filing of the appeal. It requires pertinent notice in the context that the application itself for obtaining of certified copies was filed after the period of limitation was over. In the matter of an institutional litigation, there would be people entrusted with the job of noticing and notifying the day to day proceedings to the competent authority. In this case too, it is in evidence that there was a named official who was charged with the responsibility of pursuing the case. He was not examined in the course of the proceedings for condonation of delay, qua which an issue with regard to sufficiency or otherwise of the averred ground of condonation had been framed. Even the learned counsel, who represented the petitioner herein before the learned Rent Controller, was not examined at the trial. It Civil Revision No. 3240 of 2009 -3- *** is that learned counsel and the official aforementioned who were the only competent quarters to indicate the circumstances under which the real import of the order could not understood. The plea, raised with regard to the inability on the part of the petitioner herein to understand the real import of the judgment, would appear to be misconceived inasmuch as it was for the averring party to have explained the implication and connotations thereof. No endeavour was made on behalf of the petitioner to offer an explanation in that context. Once an order is pronounced, the fact thereof is noticed by the learned counsel who appears in the Court to hear the pronouncement. If the learned counsel does not appear at the time of pronouncement it would his Clerk who would be expected to be available at that point of time. If none of them was available, the official who was charged with the responsibility pursuing this litigation would have appeared and noticed the fact of pronouncement. None of the three indicated quarters were examined to indicate what exactly could not be understood in the matter of noticing the real import of the order granted by the learned Rent Controller. There can be no dispute with the proposition that the State (and also its instrumentalityies) may be entitled to little indulgence in the matter of condonation of delay. At the same time, it is for the applicant party to indicate what exactly impeded the expeditious presentation of the appeal. For the reasons noticed in the earlier part of this order, I am clear in my mind that the petitioner herein has not been able to make out a case for condonation of Civil Revision No. 3240 of 2009 -4- *** delay and the plea in the relevant behalf had been correctly negatived by the learned Trial Court. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed accordingly. March 02, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE