CR No. 5362 of 2010 -1- ***** IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 5362 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 09.09.2010 Randhir Singh & others .......... Petitioners Versus Hardeep Singh & others Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Ms. Puja Chopra, advocate for the petitioners. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) C.M. No. 21545-CII of 2010 C.M. is allowed, the applicant / petitioner is exempted from filing the typed copy of judgment and order of learned lower appellate Court dated 11.5.2010. C.M. No. 21546-CII of 2010 For the reasons stated in the application, C.M. is allowed, delay of 13 days in filing the revision petition is condoned. CR No. 5362 of 2010 & C.M. No. 21547-CII of 2010 The petitioners have invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court to challenge the order dated 11.5.2010 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Patiala vide which application moved by the petitioner for condoning the delay in filing the appeal stands declined. CR No. 5362 of 2010 -2- ***** The suit against the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners / defendants was decreed on 14.6.2006 and the defendants were restrained from alienating the specific khasra No. / specific portion of the land in dispute till partition of the land in dispute. During the life time of the judgment debtor no appeal was filed. It was after the death of Sh. Gurdial Singh, appeal was filed along with an application for condoning the delay on the ground, that though they had knowledge of judgment and decree, but they did not file the appeal against the judgment and decree, in view of compromise between the parties. The averments made were disputed by the respondents. The learned lower appellate Court did not accept the explanation given by the petitioners for condonation of delay, as no material was placed on record to show that any talks of compromise had taken place with the respondent / plaintiff. The appeal had become time barred, during the life time of the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners / defendants. The learned appellate Court rightly held, that no sufficient cause was shown for condoning the delay. The exercise of discretion by the learned appellate Court does not call for any interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. No merit. Dismissed. 09.09.2010 (VINOD K. SHARMA) 'sp' JUDGE