Civil Revision No. 1619 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1619 of 2010 Date of decision : 16.3.2010 Sukhbir ....Petitioner Versus Rajinder ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Jitender Nara, Advocate for the petitioner. S. D. ANAND, J. A suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff against the defendant-petitioner came to be decreed by the learned Trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 8.8.2006. The petitioner-defendant filed an appeal before the learned Ist Appellate Court after a delay of eight months. Alongwith the appeal, the petitioner-defendant filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to obtain condonation of delay of 8 months in the filing of the appeal. The averments, made in the context, was that he fell ill on 5.8.2006 on account of typhoid fever and recovered on 30.3.2007. The further averment, in the context, was that his counsel did not intimate the decision of the suit to him. Learned Ist Appellate Court negatived the plea for condonation of delay by noticing that the Medical practitioners who were alleged to have treated the defendant-petitioner had not been examined at the trial. It was also noticed that though the petitioner- Civil Revision No. 1619 of 2010 -2- defendant is a resident of Jhajjar (district headquarters) since 1987, he had opted to have the treatment from a Medical Practitioner practicing in a village Surakhpur which is at a distance of about 10 kilometers from Jhajjar. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner- defendant argues that the entire reasoning adopted by the learned Ist Appellate Court suffers from the vice of bias and inappropriateness inasmuch as the discretion exercised by the petitioner-defendant to obtain treatment from a Doctor he trusted could not have been questioned. The plea raised is neither here nor there. The petitioner- defendant cannot wish away that the two doctors who treated him were not examined, in support of the plea. If they had been examined they would have indicated their academic and professional credentials which could have enabled the petitioner-defendant to justify his option to get the treatment from those village-based Doctors. I find, on a perusal of the impugned order, that the learned Ist Appellate Court had taken an appropriate view of the matter in negativing the plea for condonation of delay of eight months in the filing of the appeal. The petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed accordingly. March 16, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE