CR No.3175/2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.3175/2011 Date of decision: 13.12.2011. Puran Singh ....................Petitioner v. Sukhdev Singh & Ors. .....................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh Present: Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Jaswant Singh.J.(Oral) Plaintiff/petitioner has filed the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution for setting aside the order dated 23.03.2011 (P-1) passed by Additional District Judge, Sirsa dismissing his appeal as time barred due to non deposit of costs of Rs.5,000/-. It is apparent that plaintiff petitioner had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the suit land and that the revenue entries showing the defendants to be joint owners in possession of the suit land were wrong, incorrect and liable to be corrected in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner entitling him to get mutation with regard to suit land in his favour with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the respondent/defendant from CR No.3175/2011 2 interfering in any manner into the ownership and possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. The said suit was contested which was ultimately dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 20.03.2009(P-2). Aggrieved against the same petitioner preferred an appeal. Since there was delay in filing the appeal petitioner filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The said application was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa vide order dated 24.02.2011 subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- and the case was adjourned to 23.03.2011. Failure on the part of the petitioner to deposit the costs resulted into passing of the impugned order. It is submitted by the learned Counsel that the petitioner is aged 87 years and has a frail health and that he can move only with the help of someone. Though the petitioner was informed about the imposition of costs but somehow due to a communication gap the petitioner approached his counsel only on 24.03.2011 to deposit the costs on which date he was informed by his Counsel that the hearing of the appeal was scheduled on 23.03.2011 on which date the same stood dismissed for non deposit of the costs. In these circumstances it is prayed that plaintiff/petitioner be granted one opportunity to deposit the costs as ordered by the appellate Court. After hearing the learned Counsel though I find no illegality in the impugned order, however, keeping in view the advanced age of the petitioner and circumstances explained above I deem it appropriate to grant one opportunity to the petitioner to deposit the costs as CR No.3175/2011 3 imposed by the appellate Court. Accordingly present revision petition is allowed, impugned order dated 23.03.2011 (P-1) is set aside and the petitioner is granted opportunity to deposit the costs of Rs.5,000/- imposed by the learned appellate Court within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. This shall however be subject to further imposition of costs of Rs.500/- each payable to 14 respondents/defendants. It is made clear that the imposition of costs by this Court is in addition to the costs already imposed by the learned Appellate Court. In the event of petitioner's depositing the costs as stated above, the learned Appellate Court is directed to hear the appeal on merits. This order is being passed without issuing notice to the defendants/respondents to avoid delay and to save them from further litigation expenses. Moreover, they are being compensated by way of costs. 13.12.2011 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge