Civil Revision No. 1837 of 2008 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1837 of 2008 Date of decision: 27.01.2009 M/s Chandi Construction Company Ltd. ...Petiitioner Versus Executive Engineer and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Puneet Bali, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Jayender S. Chandail, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana for the respondents. ***** S.D.ANAND, J. In a controversy between the parties, the Arbitrator gave the award on 5.12.2003. An appeal against that award was disposed of by the District Court on 1.12.2006. It was, thereafter, only that the respondents (State of Haryana & Executive Engineer, Construction Division No.16, now amalgamated in Construction Division No. 17, Karnal) filed a review plea before the District Court on an averment that the Contractor had committed a fraud. Along with that review plea, the respondents also filed a plea for the condonation of delay. The District Court did not decide the condonation plea in the first instance and proceeded to frame the following issues on merits of the review plea:- “1. Whether there are sufficient grounds to review the judgment and decree dated 15.12.2006?OPA Civil Revision No. 1837 of 2008 -2- *** 2. Relief” The only grievance of the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, is that the District Court ought to have first disposed of the condonation plea before framing issues on merits of the review plea. He otherwise reserves his right to contest the maintainability itself of the review plea. Learned State counsel states that the respondents shall have to, in any case, adduce evidence to prove that they had been defrauded in order to succeed on the condonation plea. Be that as it may, it cannot be argued that issues on merits could have been validly framed by the District Court without disposing of the condonation plea. By the very nature of things, an authority under the law would be competent to adjudicate upon the merits only after it allow the reception of a plea which had not been filed in time. If the condonation is allowed then, ofcourse, merits have to be examined. However, if the condonation plea itself is declined, there will be no occasion for the Court to go into the merits of the matter. The petition shall stand allowed accordingly. The impugned order shall stand quashed. The learned District Court shall dispose of condonation plea in the first instance. It will be for the respondents to adduce whatever evidence they wish to adduce in support of whatever plea they want to raise to obtain the condonation of delay. It will be, ofcourse, open to the District Court to decide upon admissibility thereof. January 27, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge