C.R. No.221 of 2005 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.221 of 2005 (O&M) Date of Decision: 11.08.2009 Buta Singh .....Petitioner Versus Harnam Singh ....Respondent Present: Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Sanjay Majithia, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J. (ORAL) 1. The civil revision is against an order dismissing an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking for a condonation of 74 days delay in preferring the appeal. The suit had been decreed for specific performance and the defendant, who failed to get the appeal admitted, is the revision petitioner before this Court. 2. The Appellate Court has referred to the fact that each day's delay was bound to be explained and 74 days delay cannot be condoned and also cited decisions to the effect that it is not the number of days delay that is relevant but the cause for delay that would be important for consideration. The lower Appellate Court also considered that the execution petition had also been filed before the Lower Court and the appeal had been filed only after the process in execution had started to C.R. No.221 of 2005 (O&M) -2- prevent the decree-holder from realizing the fruits of the decree. 3. While no serious exception could be taken for the judicial reasoning adopted by the Appellate Court, I still feel that in suits relating to immovable property, the Courts could take liberal view of the matter and allow parties to seek adjudication on merits. The cause for the delay complained of by the defendant was that his counsel had not informed him. It is rather a recurring theme in a litigant's experience that the correct information regarding the date of judgment is not informed or the copies of the judgment had not been made available to the parties within time. If there was a delay in preferring the appeal, the appropriate reparation for a plaintiff, who had been delayed from obtaining an adjudication on merits could be compensated with costs. Having regard to the fact that the case had been pending for a period of more than four years and the decree-holder has not been able to enforce the decree, which he had obtained on 18.01.2003, I award costs of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the revision petitioner to the decree-holder on or before 15.09.2009, failing which the order passed by the lower Appellate Court shall stand confirmed. If the amount is paid before that date, the order of the Appellate Court shall be set aside and the Appellate Court shall take up the case and dispose it of on merit within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the record. 4. Subject to the above, the civil revision petition is disposed of. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 11, 2009 Pankaj*