C. R. No. 1965 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 1965 of 2010 Date of Decision : July 05, 2010 Satwinder Kumar .... Petitioner Vs. Naurang Singh and another .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Ms. Poonam Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Manuj Nagrath, Advocate for the respondents. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : This is revision petition by plaintiff Satwinder Kumar under Section 115 read with Order 41 Rule 3-A of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short – CPC) impugning order dated 21.11.2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur. Suit filed by plaintiff-petitioner against respondents was decreed partly against respondent no.1 only, vide judgment and decree dated 26.02.2007, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Malerkotla. Plaintiff preferred first appeal against the said judgment and decree. Along C. R. No. 1965 of 2010 2 with the appeal, the plaintiff also moved application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur, vide impugned judgment dated 21.11.2009, dismissed the plaintiff's application for condonation of delay and consequently dismissed the first appeal as time barred. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has filed the instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the respondents, at the outset, contended that the revision petition is time barred and even application for condonation of delay has not been moved, and therefore, the revision petition is not maintainable. The contention cannot be accepted. The revision petition was initially filed on 10.02.2010 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Order 41 Rule 3-A CPC. The revision petition was thus filed within limitation. However, when Office raised objection regarding maintainability of revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner re-filed the revision petition on 22.03.2010 under Section 115 read with Order 41 Rule 3-A CPC. In these circumstances, the revision petition cannot be said to be barred by limitation. On merits, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there was delay of eight days only in filing the appeal, which should have been condoned by the lower appellate court on payment of some cost. C. R. No. 1965 of 2010 3 Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contended that there was no sufficient ground for condonation of delay. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Law of condonation of delay is liberal and ordinarily, delay is condoned unless there is mala fide or dishonest intention or some other special circumstance to the contrary. In the instant case, the petitioner alleged that he was under bona fide impression that limitation period for filing the appeal was three months and for this reason, there was delay in filing the appeal. Since the delay was of eight days only, I am of the considered opinion that the delay should have been condoned by the lower appellate court on payment of some cost. The impugned judgment is patently illegal and unsustainable and has resulted in injustice and prejudice to the petitioner. Lower appellate court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction, which vested in it. For the reasons aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed and impugned judgment dated 21.11.2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur is set aside and delay in filing the first appeal is condoned on payment of Rs.1,000/- as cost precedent. On payment of the cost, the appeal shall be decided on merits in accordance with law by the lower appellate court. Files of both the courts below be sent back immediately to the lower appellate court. Parties are directed to appear there on 04.08.2010. July 05, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) C. R. No. 1965 of 2010 4 monika JUDGE