IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2393 of 2010 Date of decision: 19th July, 2010 Raj Devi and others … Petitioners Versus Chairman, Utri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Munish Mittal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) The prayer of the petitioners to continue the suit as an indigent person was declined by the trial Court. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioners had filed Civil Revision No.6558 of 2008 in this Court. A Coordinate Bench, on November 25, 2009, had passed the following order: “Vide impugned order dated 4.11.2008 the permission has been refused to the plaintiff-petitioner to sue as an indigent person by the trial Court. Without entering into the controversy whether the petitioner is an indigent person or not, it is sufficient to observe that the impugned order dated 4.11.2008 is an appealable order under 43 sub Rule 1(na) CPC. The revision petition is dismissed as not maintainable. However, it is made clear that in case the petitioner files an appeal within a period of ten days along with an application for condonation of delay, the appeal will be entertained subject to any condition imposed by the lower appellate Civil Revision No.2393 of 2010 Court, if no appeal against the impugned had earlier been filed.” In pursuance of the same, petitioners filed an appeal. The appellate Court held that the appeal ought to have been filed on or before 5th December, 2009, but the petitioners had filed the same on 9th December, 2009, i.e. four days after the period of ten days prescribed by this Court. Counsel for the petitioners states that the order was passed by this Court on November 25, 2009 and copy of the same was received by the petitioners on 1st December, 2009. Learned counsel states that the petitioners were under an impression that the period consumed for receiving the certified copy of the order will be excluded while counting the period of ten days granted by this Court. Learned counsel further submits that there was no willful default on the part of the petitioners. Taking totality of circumstances spelt out by counsel for the petitioners into consideration, this Court is of the opinion that fair play and equity demand that the appeal of the petitioners should be decided on merits. Hence, the present revision petition is accepted and the order dated 26th February, 2010 (Annexure P-5) is set aside. The appeal filed by the petitioners is held to be within time and the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Karnal is directed to decide the appeal on merits. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE July 19, 2010 rps 2