Civil Revision No. 3277 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3277 of 2008 Date of decision: 23.03.2009. Prem Singh and others ...Petiitioners Versus Mahesh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Amit Goyal , Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate for the respondent No.1. ***** S.D.ANAND, J. The learned Trial Court ordered the parties to maintain status quo vide impugned order dated 12.6.2007. The defendants- petitioners filed an appeal which was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Faridabad, as time barred. The learned District Judge declined to condone the delay of 36 days in filing of the appeal. The plea raised by the defendants-petitioners is that one month vacations in the Civil Court intervened also did not find favour with the learned District Judge, Faridabad. Though there can be no dispute, in the circumstances of the case, that the defendants-petitioners filed the appeal beyond time, it also cannot be lost sight of that there were one month vacations in the Civil Courts. The affidavit-supported plea of Civil Revision No. 3277 of 2008 -2- **** defendants-petitioners is that the learned counsel representing them did not intimate the fate of the stay application to them and they were also not in a position to get into touch with the learned counsel on account of one month vacations in the Civil Court. The law would, obviously, relish judicial adjudication of a controversy on merits thereof. The petition shall stand allowed. The impugned order dated 13.5.2008 passed by the learned Ist Appellate court shall stand set aside. The learned District Judge may proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits thereof. The parties, through their learned counsel, are directed to appear before the learned District Judge on 1.4.2009. March 23, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge