Civil Revision No. 1077 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No. 1077 of 2009 Date of Decision: 6.7.2010 The Baba Mohan Ram Oil Tankers …Petitioner Versus The United India Insurance Company Limited and Another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karnal, vide order dated 19.11.2008 (Annexure P1), had condoned delay from 17.12.1998 to 30.6.2003.The reasoning adopted by the trial Judge is that the applicants were earlier agitating before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, at Panchkula, against the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, when a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court ousted the jurisdiction of the Consumer Courts by holding that the insurer of consignor is not a consumer. The Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karnal, in the concluding portion of his order, held as under:- Civil Revision No. 1077 of 2009 2 “13. I rely upon the authority reported in Ghasi Ram & Ors. Vs. Chait Ram Saini and Ors., 1998(2) Apex Court Journal, 361 (S.C.) in which it has been held that to get benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act four conditions are to be proved i.e. (i) the plaintiff who filed the suit had been prosecuting mother civil proceeding with diligence (ii) the earlier proceeding resorted by the plaintiff was based on the same cause of action; (iii) the former proceeding was prosecuted by the plaintiff in good faith in a Court (iv) the Court, due to the defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, was unable to entertain such proceedings. Hence, I allow this application subject to payment of costs of Rs.1,000/- which shall be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant”. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that learned counsel for the petitioner, in the trial Court, had accepted the cost and, therefore, also lost the right to challenge the impugned order. Hence, no interference is warranted in the present revision petition as no fault can be found with the reasoning adopted by the trial Judge and the same is dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge July 6, 2010 “DK”