CM No.27148-CII of 2008 and -1- FAO No.5433 of 2008 (O&M) IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CM No.27148-CII of 2008 and FAO No.5433 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : 10.2.2010 Charanjit Singh ..Applicant-Appellant. Vs. Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, Amritsar ..Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present : Mr.M.K.Singla, Advocate for the applicant-appellant. Mr.J.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate for Mr.P.K.Sekhon, Advocate for the respondent. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (Oral) This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 1132 days in filing of the appeal. Notice in the application was issued to which reply has been filed. It is alleged by counsel for the appellant that appellant was proceeded against ex parte on 7.8.2002 whereas the impugned judgment and decree was passed by learned Sikh Gurdwara Judicial Commission, Amritsar on 23.8.2005 but neither his counsel informed him nor he received information from the learned Commission regarding the ex parte decision. It is further submitted that the applicant came to know about the impugned judgment and decree dated 23.8.2005 in the first week of May 2008 when he received CM No.27148-CII of 2008 and -2- FAO No.5433 of 2008 (O&M) summons from Executing Court at Patiala. He contacted his Advocate, who did not attend his phone call and on his visit only he came to know that his case has been decided ex parte against him. It is also submitted that the counsel appearing on his behalf at Amritsar did not supply him complete documents, for which he had to make repeated efforts and ultimately, the appeal was filed in this Court on 23.5.2008. It is also submitted that there were some objections raised by the Registry of this Court dated 25.7.2008 and after complying with the same, the appeal was refiled on 17.12.2008 but the registry of this Court had again put an objection that the appeal has become time barred as certified copy of the judgment has not been filed. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has been apparently duped by the Advocate who had appeared on his behalf before the learned Commission as he was remiss in the performance of his sacred duty by putting in appearance before the learned Commission and also of a contractual duty of informing him about the progress of his case. It is submitted that the applicant should not be allowed to suffer for the lapse on the part of his counsel. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent has submitted that the reason which has been given in the application, is concocted because it cannot be believed that the applicant would not contact his Advocate for years together and would only come to know about ex parte order when he received summons from Executing court. It is also submitted that the appeal is hopelessly time barred. It is also submitted that had there been any lapse on the part of the Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant, the applicant should have taken some sort of action against him either by filing application before the Bar Council of Punjab and CM No.27148-CII of 2008 and -3- FAO No.5433 of 2008 (O&M) Haryana or Bar Association of which he is a member. In view of the above, this Court has come to the conclusion that the present application deserves to be dismissed as there was a delay of 1132 days in filing of the appeal. The reason assigned is apparently concocted because it is not believed that the appellant would not contact his Advocate at all much less from the date when he was proceeded against ex parte on 7.8.2002 till the date the impugned order was passed on 23.8.2005. It is also unnatural that the appellant has not taken any action against the erring Advocate, who had firstly allowed the proceedings to proceed ex parte against the appellant and secondly did not inform him about the decision. The applicant is expected to take action against such an Advocate who is not discharging his duty of an Advocate. The appellant should have, if he is aggrieved, filed an application for taking action against that Advocate or filed a complaint with the Bar Association of Amritsar of which he is a member. No such action has been taken, therefore, it is presumed that the story which has been put forward by the appellant before this Court, is an after-thought. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present application and the same is hereby dismissed. Consequently, the main appeal is also dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) 10.2.2010 JUDGE Meenu