Civil Revision No. 683 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 683 of 2010 Date of decision: 07.09.2010 Gurbax Singh ....Petitioner Versus Amarjit Singh ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. A.K. Khunger, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Punchhi, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) The petitioner has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court to challenge the order dated 7.8.2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, vide which the appeal filed by the plaintiff/petitioner against the decree of specific performance of agreement has been ordered to be dismissed as time barred as the application moved by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act stands dismissed. The case set up by the petitioner in the application was, that the arguments in this case were heard on 19.2.2008, whereas the order was pronounced on 5.4.2008, when both the parties i.e. plaintiff and the defendant applied for certified copies of the judgment and decree. The case of the petitioner further is, that when the copy was supplied to the petitioner it was disclosed that, in fact, the judgment and decree was Civil Revision No. 683 of 2010 -2- passed on 19.2.2008 itself, and not on 5.4.2008. The petitioner on receipt of certified copy of the judgment and decree, filed the appeal within 18 days thereafter. The petitioner sought condonation of delay on the ground that there was sufficient and good reasons for the petitioner not to file the appeal in time, as the copy of the judgment and decree itself was applied late due to some misunderstanding on account of fault of the Court in not pronouncing the judgment on 19.2.2008, as shown in the order. In reply to the application the fact that both the parties had applied for judgment and decree on 5.4.2008 was not disputed. The only defence taken was, that it is a matter of co-incidence, that both the parties applied for certified copy of the judgment and decree on the same day, otherwise there was no basis for the petitioner to claim that no order was passed on 19.2.2008. In view of the fact, that the application was contested the learned appellate Court framed issues. Though onus to prove the issue was on the petitioner, but he chose not to appear in the witness box and, therefore, the case being of no evidence, the application was dismissed. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner filed appeal on receipt of certified copy of the judgment and decree, within 18 days of knowledge of the date of decree. On consideration, I find force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Once, it was prima facie admitted by the respondent, that both the parties had applied for certified copy of the judgment and decree on 5.4.2008, the averments made in the application stood admitted. Civil Revision No. 683 of 2010 -3- There was no material whatsoever on record to show that the judgment and decree was passed on 19.2.2008. It is well settled law, that admitted facts need not be proved. The admission by respondent that application for copy was moved on the same day by both the parties shows that, in fact, the Court had not pronounced the judgment on 19.2.2008 but on 5.4.2008. The appeal was filed within 30 days if counted from 5.4.2008. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner waited for 18 days after receipt of certified copy also loses all the importance. Consequently, this revision is allowed, the impugned order is set aside, the application moved by the petitioner for condonation of delay is allowed, and the case is remanded back to the learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, for decision of appeal on merits in accordance with law. The parties through their counsel are directed to appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, on 1.10.2010. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge September 07, 2010 R.S.