Civil Revision No. 6318 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6318 of 2009 Date of decision : 27.5.2010 Ram Chander and others ....Petitioners Versus Gram Panchayat Karanki ......Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. S. D. ANAND, J. A suit filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners against the defendants-respondents was dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 5.3.2007. An appeal filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners against that judgment and decree was dismissed by the learned Ist Appellate Court on a plea of limitation. In appeal, the plaintiffs-petitioners had filed a pl6a under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 612 days. The averment made in support thereof was that the learned counsel representing them did not intimate the disposal of the suit to them. It is also the plea that the plaintiff-petitioner were suffering from fever and also met with an accident and on that account only they could not file the appeal in time. Learned Ist Appellate court noticed the want of evidence Civil Revision No. 6318 of 2009 -2- **** to prove that learned counsel representing plaintiffs-petitioners did not indicate disposal of the suit to them. It is also noticed that there was also complete want of evidence to prove that petitioners- plaintiffs were suffering from fever or were involved in any accident. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners is not in a position to argue that there is any factual inaccuracy in the impugned factual narration in the impugned order. The learned counsel who represented plaintiffs before the Trial Court was best circumstanced to own the attribution but he was not examined to support the averment aforementioned. No medical evidence was produced to prove that plaintiffs-petitioners were suffering from fever for any period of time nor did the plaintiffs-petitioners adduce any evidence to prove that they were or any own met with an accident during the relevant period. For the very reasons recorded by the learned Ist Appellate court, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The petition shall stand dismissed accordingly. May 27, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE Civil Revision No. 6318 of 2009 -3- ****