RSA No.1096 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1096 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 17.03.2010 Balwinder Singh ..Appellant Vs. Sohan Singh & Anr. ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma Present: Mr.Padam Jain, Advocate, for the appellant. --- Vinod K.Sharma,J. (Oral) CM No.3345-C of 2010 This application under Order 33 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code), has been filed for permission to sue as an indigent person. It has been averred in the application, that the appellant is a daily labourer and presently is doing wok as mason and is engaged in the profession of building work. It is claimed that he is not in a position to pay court fee of Rs.2970/-. List of property has also been attached along with the application. RSA No.1096 of 2010 2 This application deserves to be dismissed keeping in view the fact that the case set up by the appellant/defendant was, that he was a skilled mason who was employed by the plaintiff for construction of his house. Even in the application, it has been specifically mentioned that he is working as a mason. However, intentionally he has not chosen to mention his earning. In view of the positive averments that he has means of earning, it cannot be said that the applicant is an indigent person as contended. The learned courts below, have granted alternative relief of recovery of earnest money paid to the defendant/appellant while refusing the relief of specific performance. This court feels that there is no necessity to call for the report, to find out whether the appellant is an indigent person, as the pleadings in the application, and the proved facts of the case show, that the appellant cannot be said to be indigent person and not capable of paying the required court fee. Consequently, the application is dismissed. This appeal/application is accompanied, by an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay of 686 days in filing the appeal. Reason given is that due to engagement of the appellant, in work he could not inquire about the progress of appeal from his counsel. Thus, in the application for condonation of delay itself the appellant has pleaded negligence in conducting the case. Averments made, taken on its face value do not make out sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 686 days in filing the appeal. Consequently, both the applications - under Section 5 of the RSA No.1096 of 2010 3 Limitation Act and another under Order 33 Rule 1 of the Code are dismissed. Resultantly, the appeal is also dismissed being barred by limitation as well as being not competent. 17.03.2010 (Vinod K.Sharma) rp Judge