Civil Revision No. 5087 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5087 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 07.09.2009 Rajbir ....Petitioner Versus Jagdish ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: -Ms. Avnish Mandla, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) CM No. 21160-CII of 2009 Allowed. The applicant-appellant is exempted from filing certified copies of Annexures P-1 to P-3 and is permitted to place on record the true typed copies thereof. CR No. 5087 & CM No. 21161-CI of 2009 This revision petition is directed against the order dated 23.3.2009, passed by the learned District Judge, Jhajjar, allowing an application moved under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of agreement dated 29.09.2004, which was decreed on 19.11.2007. It was the pleaded case of the defendant/respondent, that after the passing of the decree, he obtained certified copy immediately and handed it over to his counsel for filing the appeal. The amount of stamp papers and miscellaneous expenses was also paid. It is further averred in the application, that he was kept under a wrong impression Civil Revision No. 5087 of 2009 (O&M) -2- by the counsel, as he was told that the appeal stood filed. However, it was only on 11.8.2008, that the respondent came to know that the appeal had not been filed. The application was contested by pleading that the plaintiff/petitioner had concealed the material facts from the Court, and that the sale deed under decree already stood executed and, therefore, no sufficient cause is shown for condoning the delay of 252 days. Other pleas to non-suit the plaintiff/petitioner were also taken. The learned District Judge, on appreciation of evidence and specially, keeping in view the fact, that the application filed by the defendant/respondent was supported by an affidavit, whereas no affidavit was filed by the plaintiff/petitioner to rebut the averments made in the application and allowed the application. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends, that the learned Court below was not justified in condoning the delay, as no sufficient cause was shown to condone the delay of 252 days. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. It is well settled law, that the party cannot be allowed to suffer for the fault on the part of the counsel. Furthermore, the averments made in the application were supported by an affidavit, which were not rebutted by the petitioner. Therefore, no fault can be found with the impugned order in accepting the averments made by the defendant/respondent for condoning the delay. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge September 07, 2009 R.S.