Civil Revision No.1113 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1113 of 2008 Date of decision: September 02, 2008 Vijay Kumar and another …..PETITIONERS Versus Kesar Singh …..RESPONDENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN PRESENT: Mr Ajay Jain, Advocate Mr Jai Vir Yadav, Advocate T.P.S.MANN, J. Suit for specific performance of agreement for sale dated 14.12.1999, filed by the respondent, was decreed by learned trial Court on 22.3.2007. The petitioners, who were defendants in the suit were directed to get the sale deed registered in favour of the plaintiff- respondent within a period of three months, failing which the sale deed was to be executed with the intervention of the Court. The petitioners challenged the decree by filing an appeal. Along with the appeal, an application was filed by them for condoning the delay of 116 days in filing of the appeal. It was pleaded by them in the application that they were villagers and learnt about the passing of the decree by learned trial Court only on 4.6.2007, when they contacted their counsel to enquire about the fate of the case. In fact, they were under a bonafide belief that the matter had been earlier referred to Lok Adalat on 3.6.2006 and it was likely to be compromised. Even before the Lok Adalat, the respondent had agreed to accept the payment along with interest and the petitioners promised to pay the same after harvesting the crop. Due to certain unavoidable reasons, they failed to pay the amount, Civil Revision No.1113 of 2008 -2- besides failing to get clearance from the bank and therefore, the compromise fell through. After learning about the passing of the decree by learned trial Court, they applied for obtaining its certified copy, which was received by them on 6.6.2007. Due to the fact that they were illiterates and also lacked knowledge, the petitioners came to Chandigarh to consult a lawyer practising in the High Court. After obtaining a blank power of attorney (vakalatnama), they promised to return later-on as in the meantime summer vacations had already started. After the vacations were over, the petitioners again contacted the lawyer when they were apprised that the appeal was to be preferred before learned District Judge and not in the High Court. It was under these circumstances that the appeal could be filed only on 17.7.2007 and in the process, delay of 116 days in filing of the appeal occurred. After issuance of notice in the application for condonation of delay, the respondent appeared through his counsel. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned District Judge, Sirsa did not accept the explanation of the petitioners regarding the delay which occurred in its filing. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed vide impugned order dated 31.1.2008. Vide separate order of the same date, learned District Judge, proceeded to dismiss the appeal also as being time barred. The petitioners are now before this Court in a revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the delay in filing the appeal before learned District Judge, occurred on account of lack of knowledge and ill-advise. Initially, they did not know about the passing of the decree by learned trial Court. Once they learnt Civil Revision No.1113 of 2008 -3- about the same, they obtained certified copy of the decree, but instead of contacting a counsel at district level for filing the appeal, they rushed to Chandigarh for filing the appeal in the High Court itself. It was only when they were finally told that the appeal was to be filed before learned District Judge that they could do so on 17.7.2007. Further that the petitioners had been vehemently contesting the claim of the respondent before learned trial Court, though they finally remained unsuccessful. Prayer has, accordingly, been made for accepting the revision by setting aside the impugned order on the ground that the petitioners were not going to gain any undue advantage by delaying the filing of the appeal before learned District Judge within the period of limitation. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the prayer of the petitioners by submitting that no material has been brought on the record that the petitioners ever contacted any counsel at Chandigarh for filing the appeal. Moreover, the petitioners were duly represented before learned trial Court by their counsel and it could not be believed that they were not apprised by him about the decision arrived at on 22.3.2007, when the suit was decreed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. When the suit filed by the respondent was decreed by learned trial Court on 22.3.2007, the petitioners were duly represented by their counsel in the said Court. The petitioners claimed that before the suit was decreed, the matter was also taken up before the Lok Adalat for arriving at some settlement between the parties. Even in those proceedings, the petitioners had agreed to pay the amount along with Civil Revision No.1113 of 2008 -4- interest to the respondent, to which the respondent had agreed, but later- on due to certain unavoidable reasons, the petitioners failed to pay the total amount, besides failing to get clearance from the bank. Under these circumstances, the compromise fell through. They claimed to have learnt about the passing of the decree by learned trial Court on 4.6.2007, when they contacted their counsel before learned trial Court to enquire about the fate of their case. Immediately thereafter, they applied for obtaining certified copy of the judgement and decree passed by learned trial Court, which they collected on 6.6.2007. The decree was appealable before learned District Judge, but instead of filing an appeal there, the petitioners, may be, due to illiteracy or lack of knowledge, rushed to Chandigarh and contacted a counsel for filing the appeal. By that time summer vacations had already started and the petitioners, after collecting vakalatnama, left for their village so as to return once the High Court was to reopen after the summer vacations. At that point of time, they learnt about the fact that the appeal was to be filed before learned District Judge and not in this Court. It was under these circumstances that a delay in filing the appeal appears to have occurred. Even if it is held that the petitioners have come up with a false plea for seeking condonation of delay, that is no ground to reject their application, for the reason that by not filing the appeal within the prescribed period, they did not gain any advantage. On the other hand, they faced a situation where the plaintiff-respondent could seek execution of the sale deed and its registration with the intervention of the Court. In Ram Kishan and another vs U.P. State Roadways Civil Revision No.1113 of 2008 -5- Transport Corporation and another, 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 507, the Court condoned the delay in filing the application for compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and remanded the case despite the fact that the story put forward by the appellant therein was not found convincing. In view of the above, I find that the petitioners have been able to show sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before learned District Judge. Accordingly, their application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal ought not to have been dismissed by learned District Judge. At the same time, the petitioners can be burdened with costs so as to compensate the respondent. Resultantly, the revision is accepted. Impugned order dismissing the application of the petitioners under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is set aside and the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before learned District Judge is allowed. Consequently, order passed by learned District Judge on 31.1.2008 while dismissing the appeal of the petitioners being time barred, is also set aside. Learned District Judge is directed to admit the appeal of the petitioners and consider and dispose of the same on merits. The parties with their counsel shall appear before learned District Judge, Sirsa on 23.9.2008. The petitioners are burdened with Rs.25,000/- as costs, to be paid to the respondent, upon their appearance before learned District Judge, Sirsa. September 02, 2008 (T.P.S.MANN) Pds. JUDGE