IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6000 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 24.10.2009 Chiman Singh and others .....Petitioners versus Om Parkash .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Ms.Ravinder Kaur Manaise, Advocate, for the petitioners. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of 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? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral) [1] This revision petition is directed against the order dated 24.7.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, whereby an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 996 days in filing of the first appeal preferred by the petitioners against the judgment and decree dated 27.10.2005 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ferozepur, has been dismissed and consequently, the appeal has also been dismissed being barred by limitation. [2] The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 6.5.1996 executed by the predecessor-in- C.R. No.6000 of 2009 (O&M) 2 interest of the petitioners (Bishan Singh) in favour of the respondent- plaintiff for the sale of land measuring 30 kanals 7 marlas. The respondent- plaintiff also sought an alternative relief of recovery of Rs.2,27,625/- including the earnest money and damages alongwith interest thereon. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners appeared and filed the written statement. The issues were framed and while the respondent-plaintiff was leading his evidence, defendant(s) started absenting and was proceeded ex- parte vide order dated 9.12.2002. The Civil Court thereafter decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 27.10.2005 to the extent that a money decree for the refund of Rs.1,75,000/- alongwith interest @ 24% per annum was passed in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. [3] It was against the afore-mentioned judgment and decree dated 27.10.2005 that the petitioner-defendatns preferred an appeal on 19.8.2008 alongwith an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 996 days. [4] The precise ground pressed into aid by the petitioners for condonation of delay was that their counsel never informed them the date of hearing and they came to know about the judgment and decree dated 27.10.2005 only on 5.8.2008 when warrants of attachment reached to the Halqa Patwari. The petitioners thereafter, applied for the certified copies of the judgment and decree dated 27.10.2005 and since the same were made available on 8.8.2009, then they filed the appeal on 19.8.2008. [5] Learned 1st Appellate Court has dismissed the application after observing that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners (till he was C.R. No.6000 of 2009 (O&M) 3 alive) and thereafter the petitioners themselves did appear before the trial Court and were aware of the pendency of the suit. Later on, neither the petitioners nor their counsel appeared, which led to the passing of ex-parte order on 9.12.2002. The petitioners then filed an application to set-aside the ex-parte proceedings, through their counsel, to which the reply was also filed by the respondent-plaintiff. Thereafter again, neither the petitioners nor their counsel appeared to pursue that application, which was dismissed by the trial Court. Not only this, when the civil suit was ripe for arguments, the petitioners moved yet another application seeking permission of the trial Court to join the proceedings at the stage of arguments. Their application was allowed and they were permitted to join the proceedings even at the stage of arguments. The petitioners' counsel Sh.J.S.Puri, Advocate, advanced the arguments which were duly taken notice by the trial Court in its judgment dated 27.10.2005. [6] The above noted facts clearly reveal that the petitioners were very much aware of every stage of the suit including the final judgment and decree dated 27.10.2005. The plea taken by them before the first appellate court for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was, thus, totally false, concocted and contrary to the record. The petitioners apparently did not approach the first appellate court with clean hands. [7] During the course of hearing of this revision petition and in order to test the bonafide of the petitioners, an opportunity was granted to them to deposit the entire decreetal amount with the Executing Court so that in the event of dismissal of their appeal on merits (if the case is C.R. No.6000 of 2009 (O&M) 4 remanded after condoning the delay), no further harassment was caused to the respondent-plaintiff. The petitioners however, have expressed their inability to deposit the decreetal amount. [8] In these facts and circumstances and for the reason that a totally false plea was taken while seeking condonation of delay of years together, no case to interfere with the impugned order is made out. [9] Dismissed. 24-10-2009 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE