IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.3781 of 2005 Date of Decision:- 13.05.2008 Smt.Dhanno Bibi & ors. ....Petitioner(s) through Mr.G.L.Bajaj, Advocate. vs. Gurdas Singh and others ....Respondent(s) through Mr.S.K.Arora, Advocate. *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** 1) Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? *** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 1.4.2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Ferozepur, whereby the petitioners' application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the first appeal against judgment and decree dated 6.11.2002 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Ferozepur, has been dismissed and as a sequel thereto, their appeal has also been dismissed being barred by limitation. The respondent-plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction against Gulzar Singh and some other defendants. Gulzar Singh-defendant No.1 did engage a counsel, filed the written statement and was contesting the suit when he unfortunately expired during the pendency of the suit. Though learned counsel for the parties are unable to state about the date of death of Gulzar Singh, it is revealed from the record that his legal heirs C.R. No.3781 of 2005 -2- were brought on record vide an order dated 15.3.2002. The learned trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 6.11.2002. The petitioners, who are legal heirs of deceased Gulzar Singh (defendant No.1) filed an appeal along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act on 30.3.2005 with an averment that they came to know about impugned judgment and decree only on 18.3.2005, when a certified copy thereof was produced by the respondent-plaintiffs before the Chief Settlement Commissioner. It is obvious that the appeal was preferred after a delay of more than two years and three months. The above-stated application for condonation of delay, however, has been dismissed by the first appellate Court after observing that from “the impugned judgment and decree it is made out that the appellants were served by the learned trial Court. All of them appeared and filed joint written statement hotly contesting the suit.” As noticed earlier, the written statement was filed by Gulzar Singh much before his death and he was undoubtedly contesting the suit. There is, however, nothing on record to suggest that after the death of Gulzar Singh when his legal heirs, namely, the petitioners herein, were brought on record, the learned trial Court ever issued any notice to them. In the absence thereof, no knowledge of the judgment and decree dated 6.11.2002 could be attributed to them. This aspect, however, has not been specifically dealt with by the learned first appellate Court. Consequently and for the reasons aforestated, this revision petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 1.4.2005 passed by the C.R. No.3781 of 2005 -3- learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Ferozepur is set aside and the matter is remitted with a direction to decide the application for condonation of delay afresh after arriving at a specific finding as to whether or not the learned trial Court had issued notice to the petitioners after they were brought on record as legal heirs of deceased Gulzar Singh vide order dated 15.3.2002. As regard to the other petitioners, who were party to the civil suit and might have knowledge of the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, the first appellate Court shall deal with them separately in accordance with law. Disposed of. May 13, 2008 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE