RSA No.4581 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.4581 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 22 .11.2011 Swaran Kaur & Ors. ...Appellants Vs. Joginder Singh ....Respondent BEFORE: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Ms.Ravinder Kaur, Advocate, for the appellants. --- A.N.Jindal, J. CM No.13333-C of 2011 This is an application for bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased Gobind Ram, who is stated to have died on 10.11.2009. As right to sue survives, the persons mentioned in para No.2 of the application are brought on record as the legal representatives of the deceased Gobind Ram, they are already shown in memo of parties, subject to all just exceptions. Application allowed. RSA No.4581 of 2011 2 RSA No.4581 of 2011 A suit for mandatory injunction filed by the plaintiff/respondent (herein referred as the plaintiff) directing the defendant Gobind Ram (now deceased) represented by the appellants herein, to hand over the vacant possession of House No.19/20 marked with letters ABCD shown in the site plan (owned by the plaintiff as fully detailed in the heading of the plaint), was decreed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurdaspur on 30.10.2002. Appeal against the said judgment preferred by Gobind Ram deceased was also dismissed by the first appellate court on 6.12.2007. The regular second appeal being time barred by 1346 days, therefore, is accompanied by an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. The grounds for condonation of delay are that Gobind Ram pursued the litigation up to the first appellate court and he died on 10.11.2009. The appellants were not aware about the impugned judgment and decree and they came to know about the same only during the execution proceedings. Therefore, they have filed this appeal. On perusal of the application it transpires that Smt. Swaran Kaur widow of Gobind Ram admittedly was residing with him, therefore, she must be knowing about the litigation which pertained to the same house over which they claim possession. Application does not disclose as to when they came to know about the judgment RSA No.4581 of 2011 3 passed by the courts below. Even otherwise, Gobind Ram had accepted the verdict of the appellate court but did not choose to file regular second appeal for two years. It also cannot be believed that the defendants/appellants, who were nine in number, did not know about the passing of the judgment by the first appellate court. As such, this long delay of 1346 days without any sufficient cause cannot be condoned. Consequently, application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Resultantly, the appeal also fails and is dismissed. (A.N.Jindal) 22.11.2011 Judge rp