IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH --- Civil Misc. No. 711-C of 2008 R.S.A. No. 219 of 2008 Date of decision: 28.1.2008 Malkit Singh --- Appellant Versus Paramjit Kaur and others --- Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL --- PRESENT: Mr. Tarsem Singh, Advocate for the appellant. --- AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. Challenge in this appeal at the instance of Malkit Singh, one of the defendants, is to the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two courts below to the effect that the plaintiff-respondents being legal heirs of deceased Jaskiran Singh, are entitled to recover Rs. 3,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum as damages and compensation on account of death of said Jaskiran Singh at the hands of the defendants. Plaintiffs-Paramjit Kaur and others filed a suit for recovery of rupees three lacs as damages and compensation on account of the death of Jaskiran Singh who, as per their averments, was murdered by the defendants on 24.6.1998. It was pleaded that plaintiffs, who are none-else but the widow, minor daughter and minor son of the deceased, were dependent on the latter. The deceased was aged about 32/33 years at the time of murder and was having good health. According to the plaintiffs, on the death of Jaskiran Singh, they had not only suffered monetarily but were deprived of his love and affection as well. RSA No. 219 of 2008 The defendants contested the plaintiffs’ claim and averred that they had not committed the murder of Jaskiran Singh and there was no motive for them to commit the crime, as alleged by the plaintiffs. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed various issues and upon appreciation of evidence, returned a finding that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum as damages and compensation from the defendants for causing the death of Jaskiran Singh on 24.6.1998 and all the defendants were jointly and severally liable to make payment of the said amount to the plaintiffs. The first appellate court, again on appreciation of evidence affirmed the findings returned by the trial court and dismissed the appeal preferred by the defendants. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the record. Admittedly, the plaintiffs were the widow, daughter and son respectively of the deceased whose life was cut-short by the defendants leaving behind his screaming kids, wife and old mother, when he had hardly reached in the mid of his journey of life. The blood feud was, of course, proved to be over a personal grudge of the defendants against the deceased. The evidence led by the plaintiffs in support of their claim remained unchallenged and unrebutted as the defendants did not lead any evidence despite availing of a large number of opportunities. No illegality or perversity could be pointed out by the counsel for the appellant to persuade this Court to interfere with the above findings of fact. The appeal thus, having no merit, deserves to be dismissed. Along with the appeal, the appellant has also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act i.e. Civil Misc. No. 711-C of 2008, for condonation of delay of 456 days in filing the appeal. Prayer for 2 RSA No. 219 of 2008 condonation of delay has been made on the ground that since the appellant was behind the bars, he was not in a position to file appeal. The ground set out in the application for seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, at the face of it, appears to be a lame excuse. Except the simple mention of a fact that the appellant was in jail and hence could not prefer the appeal in time, no reason whatsoever has been further mentioned in the application by which and under what circumstances, he was prevented from preferring appeal. A person lodged in jail is always at liberty to give a power of attorney to the advocate through the jail authorities. In other words, there is no obstacle in the way of a person who is lodged in the jail, to prefer appeal. The excuse of the appellant for the delay is based on flimsy ground and thus deserves to be out-rightly rejected. Moreover, before the trial court, the defendants, including the appellant, were availing of legal assistance being duly represented by an Advocate. There being no sufficient cause to explain the delay, the prayer for condonation of delay is declined. The appeal thus deserves to be dismissed on this score as well. In view of the above, the appeal is accordingly dismissed. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) January 28, 2008 JUDGE *RKMALIK* 3