R.S.A. No. 1988 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.Ms. No. 5871-C & 5872-C of 2009 and R.S.A. No. 1988 of 2009 Date of decision: 15.05.2009 Suraj Mal ....appellant versus Karan Singh and others ....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. U.K. Agnihotri, Advocate, for the appellant. *** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20.10.2008 passed by the learned Courts below vide which final decree in partition suit has been ordered to be passed on the basis of the report of the Local Commissioner. A suit for partition was filed, and with the consent of the parties, preliminary decree was passed. Thereafter, the final decree was ordered to be passed on the report of the Local Commissioner, who was appointed to frame the scheme of partition. The parties, who filed objections to the report of the Local R.S.A. No. 1988 of 2009 (O&M) -2- Commissioner, got the objections dismissed as withdrawn. Only objections filed by Karan Singh were adjudicated by framing issues. The said objections were also subsequently got dismissed as withdrawn. The counsel for the appellant also signed the application for withdrawal of the objections. The learned Courts below, therefore, found that there were no objections against the report of the Local Commissioner, thus, ordered the passing of final decree on the basis of the report of the Local Commissioner. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appeal raises the following substantial questions of law: - "1. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below is liable to be reversed, as the report of the Local Commissioner is not as per the compromise/mode of partition? 2. Whether the Local Commissioner could change the possession of the parties while framing the scheme by ignoring the construction raised?" In support of the substantial questions of law, the learned counsel for the appellant contends, that the report of the Local Commissioner, which has been accepted by the learned Courts below, is contrary to the scheme, as some of the persons, who already have constructed houses, have also been given plots. The contention raised is, that the decree passed by the learned Courts below deserves to be set aside, for the reason of report being contrary to mode of partition. The plea raised by the learned counsel for the appellant cannot R.S.A. No. 1988 of 2009 (O&M) -3- be taken note of. Once the appellant had chosen not to file objections immediately on receipt of report of the Local Commissioner and only made an attempt to file objections after six years of the report. The objections raised were not pressed before the learned Courts below. In view of this, no fault can be found with the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below. The substantial questions of law raised are answered against the appellant. It may also be noticed that along with appeal, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 68 days in filing the appeal, has been moved. The ground taken for condonation of delay reads as under: - "That the present appeal was filed before this Hon'ble Court on 5.2.2009. The appellant is an illeterate person who does not understand the technicalities of law and therefore could not file the present appeal in time. However a little period was taken in preparing the appeal also and it caused the delay of 16 days in filing the appeal. Thereafter the registry branch raised objections and the same were complied with after getting the necessary instructions from the appellant and it caused the delay of 68 days. The above delay is not intentional and it has occurred due to the reasons mentioned above. In case the delay is not condoned, the appellant will have to suffer irreparable loss and injury." The reading of pleading shows that the ground taken is totally vague and lacks material particulars. No sufficient cause is made out for condoning the delay of 68 days in filing the appeal. R.S.A. No. 1988 of 2009 (O&M) -4- The appeal is accordingly ordered to be dismissed on merits as well as on the ground of limitation. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge May 15, 2009 R.S.