RSA No.388 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.388 of 2008 Date of Decision: 23.07.2009 Mahender ...Appellant VERSUS Sanjay Kumar and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present: Mr. Sudhanshu Makkar, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Hari Om Attri, Advocate for respondent No.1. *** AJAY TEWARI J. (ORAL) This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of respondent No.1 for injunction restraining the appellant from interfering in their possession over the land in dispute. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that in fact the suit was decreed ex-parte because of the omission of the counsel for the appellant to inform him about the ongoing proceedings and because of that omission even the appeal was delayed. He has thus assailed the order of the learned Lower Appellate Court refusing to condone the delay in filing of the appeal. Learned Lower Appellate Court has found that in respect of the plea of the appellant regarding the omission of the counsel, apart from the bald statement no other evidence was led. It was on this ground that the learned RSA No.388 of 2008 -2- Lower Appellate Court even while conceding that the law of limitation should be construed liberally declined to grant relief to the appellant on merits. In support of this appeal, the following questions have been proposed:- “a) Whether the Ist Appellate Court has aptly dismissed the appeal without adjudicating on merits of case and summarisingly dismissing it being time barred? b) Whether the Judgment/Order and decrees of both the Courts below are perverse, bad, illegal, not based on pleadings and evidences on record and are not legally sustainable?” As regards question No.1, no fault can be found with the order of the learned Lower Appellate Court in rejecting the application for condonation of delay as it is supported by the judgments of this Court in the cases of Jaswant Singh v. Assistant Registrar, Coop. Societies, 2000(2) RCR (Civil) page 348, Lekh Raj v. Karnal Improvement Trust and another, 2006(2) RCR (Civil) page 261 and P. K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala, 1997(4) RCR page 242. As regards the second question, the case of the appellant is that the predecessor in interest of the respondents Kurda Ram was never allotted any specific number and therefore there could be no need to transfer any specific numbers to the respondents. Consequently, the appellant and the respondents were co-sharers and no injunction could thus granted to the respondents. I find that the above said assertion is not correct. Kurda Ram was allotted 12 Bigha of land out of Khasra No.477/1 and number of his RSA No.388 of 2008 -3- land was mentioned as 477/1 Min. while admittedly the land of the appellant was in Khasra No.477/1. Once his separate khata was carved out for Kurda Ram's land there was no bar in selling the land and in giving possession of the specific khasra numbers. Second argument on questions of law raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that in the allotment letter in favour of Kurda Ram it was clearly mentioned that he could not sell the land for a period of 10 years and, the sale deed in favour of the respondents being within the said period, the same was void. In my opinion, this argument cannot be used by the appellant. If at all there is some illegality in the sale of the land by Kurda Ram, it is for the allotting authority to take action against him. Thus the respondents would be entitled to the injunction. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed. No costs. As the main case has been disposed of therefore all the pending civil miscellaneous applications in the case also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) July 23, 2009 JUDGE ashish