IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Civil Revision 97 of 2007. Date of decision March 25, 2008. Shri Sri Ram ….Petitioner. Versus Mehar Chand and others ….Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate. For respondents: Mr. Vinay Thakur, Advocate. 1 to 4 and 6 to 8 For respondent No. 5 Ms. Madhu Sharma, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud, J. (Oral) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order of the learned District Judge, Kullu, dismissing application preferred by him praying for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 11.7.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Manali dismissing the suit instituted by the plaintiff – petitioner. The learned District Judge, on consideration of the evidence before him, concluded that the allegations of the petitioner herein that he was prevented by medical reasons from pursuing 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - his remedy in appeal were not sufficient in law to enable him to get the benefit of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The learned Judge holds that the petitioner is playing hide and seek with Court and has not placed complete facts before the Court. The petitioner produced AW-1 and AW-2 Dr. Hari Pal Thakur and Dr. R.L.Gupta. Both these doctors proved the authenticity of the medical certificates, namely Ex.AW-1/A certifying that the petitioner herein required rest from 29.7.2005 to 31.12.2005 as he was suffering from high blood pressure and diabetes and Ex.AW-2/A certifying that the petitioner was a patient of IHD (Ischemic Heart Disease) and COPD (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease). He advised the petitioner to undergo angiography in a well equipped Cardiac Centre. He was being treated by him from 2.1.2006 to 24.2.2006. In cross examination of these witnesses, nothing material has been brought out which would contradict their opinion that the petitioner did not require medical attention and treatment. The learned District Judge has disbelieved the medical evidence solely on the ground that the petitioner was present in Court on three or four occasions in some other proceedings and, therefore, could also instruct counsel to institute the appeal within time. His presence in - 3 - Court on those dates according to the learned District Judge falsifies the claim that the petitioner was undergoing medical treatment. Although in revisional jurisdiction, it would not be open to this Court to revise the conclusions arrived at on the basis of evidence on record, yet the principles invoked for rejecting the claim of the petitioner cannot be used in the present case. Undoubtedly, the petitioner is required to be vigilant about his rights and cannot adopt a caviler attitude to litigation, but, merely omitting to plead that he was present on a particular day in Court would not constitute an act of a nature which would falsify entire claim. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the testimony of the doctors is false or that the medical certificates do not in fact justify the stand of the petitioner. The petitioner has also not been cross examined on these aspects nor any questions put to the doctors as to how the presence of the petitioner has been recorded in Court when he was advised rest. Even the petitioner has not been asked as to whether his participation in Court proceedings was effective or not or that he does not require medical treatment and rest. In these circumstances, the approach of the learned District Judge in holding that his claim is false cannot be accepted. The principle - 4 - of law that no man should be allowed to play hide and seek with Court cannot be disputed and is salutary in nature, protecting law Courts from those who want to manipulate and abuse the process of law. At the same time, law must be tempered with justice so that a good cause is not lost without a proper hearing to a party. In the circumstances, this revision petition is allowed subject to the petitioner paying Rs.5000/- as costs to the respondents. Parties will appear before the learned District Judge on 17.6.2008, on which date the costs shall be paid to the opposite side. It is clarified that in case such costs are not paid, this revision will be treated to be dismissed and the order of the learned District Judge shall revive. It is also clarified that this decision shall be confined to the facts of the present case and shall not be used or cited as a precedent in any other matter. March 25, 2008(PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.