Civil Revision No. 2653 of 1993 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2653 of 1993 Date of Decision: June 30, 2010 Smadh Dera Som Jyoti Sarup Khadial ......... Petitioner versus Baldev Singh and others .......... Respondents 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present:- Shri Amarjit Markan, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri H.R. Noharia, Advocate for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. The challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the learned First Appellate Court 27.04.1993 declining the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 8 days in filing the appeal. The petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that the plaintiff is the owner in possession of agricultural land measuring 30 Kanals 13 Marlas and the sale deed dated 28.01.1986 is null and void, illegal and inoperative qua the rights of the plaintiff. The plaintiff also sought a declaration in respect of land measuring 45 Kanals 15 Marlas stated to be leased vide lease deed 31.01.1986. The said lease deed was stated to be null Civil Revision No. 2653 of 1993 [2] and void, illegal and inoperative qua the rights of the plaintiff. The learned trial Court partly decreed the suit on 17.02.1988 whereby it found the lease deed to be ineffective qua the rights of the plaintiff but dismissed the suit in respect of land measuring 30 Kanals 13 Marlas. The plaintiff applied for certified copy of judgment and decree on 19.02.1988 vide application registered at serial No. 188. The petitioner filed an appeal before the learned First Appellate Court on 7.4.1988 alleging that the appeal is within limitation. An objection was raised by the respondents that, in fact, there is tempering in the date of supply of the copy inasmuch as the certified copy was prepared on 2.3.1988 whereas the same is purporting to have been prepared on 12.03.1988 and, thus, alleged that there is tempering of record which warrants action against the petitioner and the official of the Court. The learned First Appellate Court called for the report of the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court submitted that the petitioner through Shri R.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate, applied for certified copy of the judgment and decree dated 19.02.1988 against application registered at serial No. 188 on 2.3.1988. Two other applications were applied by Sh. Baldev Singh for the same judgment and decree. Such applications were registered at serial Nos. 189 and 190. CD-8 Register maintained by the Copying Agency shows that the date entered for delivery of these copies is 2.3.1988, whereas the certified copy produced along with the Memorandum of Appeal mentions the date of delivery as 12.03.1988. On the basis of such report, the Court found that figure '1' has been interpolated so as to bring the appeal within the period of limitation. Since there is tempering with the record, it cannot be said that there is sufficient cause which may warrant Civil Revision No. 2653 of 1993 [3] condonation of delay in filing of appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner is a religious institution and that there is no finding that interpolation in the date of delivery of certified copy is at the instance of the petitioner. I do not find any merit in the said argument. The petitioner is beneficiary of interpolation in the date of delivery of copy of judgment and decree. Even if the petitioner cannot itself interpolate in the date of delivery of certified copy, the fact that interpolation has been made in the certified copy stands proved. In view of the said interpolation in the date of delivery of certified copy of the judgment and decree, the petitioner is not entitled to any equitable relief of condonation of delay in filing of appeal. Law is meant for the persons who act bona fide and not for a person who produce certified copy of the judgment and decree which is interpolated. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order passed by the learned First Appellate Court which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed. June 30, 2010 ( HEMANT GUPTA ) ks JUDGE