R.S.A. No. 2123 of 2009 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 2123 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 22.5.2009 Khushi Ram .......... Appellant Versus Municipal Council, Jagadhri ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Krishan Singh, Advocate for the appellant. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) C.M. No. 6319-C of 2009 This is an application for exemption from filing certified copy of the judgment and decree dated 23.1.2009 of the learned trial Court. For the reasons stated in the application, C.M. is allowed, the filing of certified copy of the judgment and decree dated 23.1.2009 of the learned trial Court., is ordered to be dispensed with. R.S.A. No. 2123 of 2009 & C.M. No. 6320-C of 2009 This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23.1.2009, passed by the learned Courts below vide which suit filed by the plaintiff / appellant against the defendant – Municipal Council, Jagadhri, stands dismissed. The plaintiff / appellant claimed injunction on the plea that he R.S.A. No. 2123 of 2009 2 was tenant under the Municipal Council, Jagadhri on payment of Rs. 20/- per month as rent. However, he failed to produce any rent note or even a single rent receipt showing the payment of rent to the Municipal Council, Jagadhri. The learned trial Court, therefore, held that the plaintiff / appellant being merely a trespasser was not entitled to injunction against the Municipal Council, Jagadhri i.e. true owner and dismissed the suit. Appellant preferred an appeal beyond the period of limitation. The learned lower appellate Court did not accept the explanation given for the delay in filing the appeal, and held that no sufficient cause is made out for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The appeal stands dismissed being time barred. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appeal raises the following substantial question of law :- Whether the learned lower appellate Court committed an error in law in dismissing the application for condonation of delay by ignoring the settled law, that by condoning the delay the parties can only have their matter adjudicated on merit, therefore, liberal approach is required to be taken ? The learned counsel for the appellant in support of the substantial question of law vehemently contends, that even a trespasser is entitled to protect his established possession against illegal dispossession, therefore, the rights of the plaintiff / appellant have not been gone into R.S.A. No. 2123 of 2009 3 merely by declining to condone the delay, the order passed by the learned lower appellate Court, therefore, is said to be perverse and not sustainable in law. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant further is, that the order passed by the learned trial Court is also perverse, as once it was established that the plaintiff / appellant was in possession, he was entitled to injunction, which has been wrongly declined. On consideration of the matter, I find no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. Nothing was brought on record by the plaintiff / appellant showing issuance of any notice by the Municipal Council, Jagadhri for his eviction. He on his own sought injunction against the true owner by taking wrong plea, that he was tenant over the premises in dispute. The learned trial Court, therefore, rightly held, that the trespasser is not entitled to seek injunction against the true owner as his established possession was proved on record. The discretion exercised by the learned lower appellate Court in rejecting the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal also cannot be said to be perverse. Once the plaintiff / appellant had failed to show sufficient cause for condoning the delay. The learned lower appellate Court, therefore, was justified in dismissing the suit as time barred. Though liberal approach is to be taken for condonation of delay, still it does not mean that even in case the party fails to show any sufficient cause the delay is still to be condoned. R.S.A. No. 2123 of 2009 4 The substantial question of law, raised, is answered against the appellant. No merit. Dismissed. 22.5.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE