RSA No.2948 of 2010 (O&M) - 1 - ****** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2948 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:06.08.2010. The Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Kaithal ...Appellant Versus Dr. Virender Kumar and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Ms. Preeti Khanna, Advocate, for the appellant. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL) CM No.8820-C of 2010 For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 52 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. CM No.8821-C of 2010 Application is allowed as prayed for. RSA No.2948 of 2010 (O&M) This appeal is directed against judgment and decree of both the Courts below whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondents has been decreed and the appeal filed by the appellant has been dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court on the ground of limitation. The judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court was passed on RSA No.2948 of 2010 (O&M) - 2 - ****** 07.06.2007. Limitation to file first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short CPC] is 30 days from the date of the judgment and decree. However, the appeal has been filed after one and half year of the judgment and decree of the Trial Court along with an application for condonation of delay in which the reason assigned was that the Clerk of the counsel, who was conducting the case of the appellant before the Trial Court, did not communicate the decision nor supplied the certified copy of the order to the appellant. It is also alleged that the Estate Officer, HUDA, Kaithal came to know about the decision of the Trial Court on 27.12.2008 and, thereafter, the appeal was filed on 20.01.2009, as per the date of institution mentioned in the judgment of the learned First Appellate Court. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the appeal is good on merits which should not be thrown out on the mere technicalities of limitation. She is at pains to persuade this Court to take lenient view insofar as the question of limitation is concerned and remand the matter to the learned First Appellate Court for deciding it on merits. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record with her assistance. This case has been filed by the Estate Officer, Kaithal. He is defendant No.1 in the Suit. There is no explanation as to what action has been taken by the HUDA authorities against the erring advocate who is alleged to have neither supplied the certified copy nor informed the HUDA authorities at Kaithal about the decision of the Trial Court. There is no explanation as to why the Estate Officer, Kaithal did not depute any RSA No.2948 of 2010 (O&M) - 3 - ****** official/officer of HUDA on the date when the order was announced by the learned Trial Court. It is not expected of an organization like HUDA to not pursue its cases diligently and take pleas/grounds which are not only flimsy but also totally misleading. In this case, the learned Court below has recorded a finding that the Estate Officer had alleged to have acquired knowledge about the judgment and decree of the Trail Court on 27.12.2008, whereas, admittedly, as per zimni order dated 12.09.2008, Shri Hawa Singh, the then SDM-cum-Estate Officer had appeared before the Executing Court and sought adjournment for compliance of the judgment and decree and on his request the case was adjourned to 24.10.2008. Meaning thereby, a deliberate attempt has been made by the SDM-cum-Estate Officer to mislead the Court by making a false statement. It is surprising that an officer of the rank of SDM would make a false statement before the Court for the purpose of getting a favourable order. The conduct of the Estate Officer is highly deprecated and the anguish of the Court is placed on the record of this case. Since there is an unexplained delay of one and half year in filing the appeal before the learned First Appellate Court, I do not find any error of law in the impugned order dated 22.02.2010 and as such the appeal is dismissed in limine. Registry is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula for necessary action in accordance with law. August 06, 2010. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE