Civil Revision No.3635 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3635 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision 08.07.2009 Surjit Singh and others ......Petitioners VERSUS M/s Sumiti Kumar ......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.P.K.Ganga, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.S.K.Jain, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL): This revision petition is directed against the order dated 12.06.2007, passed by Addl. District Judge, Fast Track Court, Sirsa, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners-appellants has been dismissed, being time barred. The judgment, in this case, was passed by the trial Court on 27.09.2006. The petitioners had applied for the copy of the judgment and decree on 07.03.2007, which was supplied to them on 08.03.2007 and the appeal was preferred by them on 12.03.2007. In the ordinary course, the appeal was to be filed within one month after deducting the days for preparation of the copy from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that his client had engaged Sh.K.S.Sidhu, Advocate, but the same is not correct. Record Civil Revision No.3635 of 2007 2 transpires that it was only Mr.K.S.Passi, who was engaged by the petitioners and not Mr.K.S.Sidhu, Advocate. The petitioners were directed to file copy of affidavit of Mr.K.S.Sidhu, Advocate, in order to show his bonafides that he was engaged by the petitioners and he had further engaged Mr.K.S.Passi, Advocate but no such affidavit has been filed. The petitioners must be pursuing the case and led the evidence before the trial Court, therefore, it does not lie in their mouth that Mr.K.S.Passi was not their counsel. The judgment passed by the trial Court dated 27.09.2006 reveals that Mr.K.S.Passi was appearing in this case on behalf of the petitioners. The petitioners never disclosed to the trial Court that Sh.K.S.Passi is not their counsel. It was a suit for recovery of Rs.3,21,000/- against three persons regarding different transactions. No doubt, good cause has not been shown for condonation of delay, yet the petitioners were not to be benefitted by filing a delayed appeal. It would be expedient in the interest of justice that no man should be condemned unheard and the appeal should be decided on merits, then throw the same in the dustbin without hearing the appellant. The appellant has offered to pay the Court fee in case delay is condoned. Further the interest of the respondent could be safeguarded by directing the petitioners to furnish a bank guarantee for due performance of the decree. The petitioners have also cited the judgments 2006 (2) Civil Court Cases 546 (P&H) Gulab Singh vs. Jawala Singh and others, 2007 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 645 SC S.V.Matha Prasad vs. Lalchand Meghraj and others and 2006(3) Civil Court Cases 727 (P&H), State of Kerala through Secretary and another vs. M/s K.Pharmaceutical Works wherein this Court took a lenient view while condoning the delay in filing the appeal, which reads as under:- Civil Revision No.3635 of 2007 3 “I am further of the view that the approach of the learned Lower Appellate Court, based on the conduct of the defendant- appellants, in availing number of opportunities before the Trial Court cannot be approved once the view of the trial Court has culminated in passing of the judgment in favour of the plaintiff- respondent, then there is no room to point out on the conduct of the defendant-appellants by the lower Appellate Court for the purposes of deciding an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. It is also not acceptable that a litigant is required to explain every day's delay because it directly comes in conflict with the observations made by the Supreme Curt in the case of Land Acquisition Collector Anantnag (Supra) and subsequent judgment in the case of Ram Nath Sao (supra). Therefore, the approach of the Lower Appellate Court cannot be appreciated.” In these circumstances, this revision petition is accepted and the impugned order dated 12.06.2007 is set aside. Delay of 5 months and 8 days in filing the appeal is condoned, subject to furnishing security in the sum of Rs.3,21,000/- for due performance of the decree within two months, subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- as costs. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 15.09.2009. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 08.07.2009 mamta-II