CR No.4051 of 2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.4051 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision: 2.7.2010 Iqbal Singh ......Petitioner(s) Versus Sub Divisional Officer & others ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. A.K Khunger, Advocate for the petitioner. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral) The petitioner, who was plaintiff before the trial Court, has filed this petition challenging the order dated 28.10.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bathinda, whereby his appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court dismissing his suit, was dismissed as time barred, for not complying with the order dated 12.3.2009 whereby an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was allowed subject to payment of Rs.2,000/- as costs. As per the averments made in this petition, Bant Singh, father of the petitioner had filed a suit for permanent injunction against respondents No.1 to 3 restraining them from interfering in his peaceful possession over the suit property. The aforesaid suit was dismissed by the Civil Judge, Phul, vide judgment and decree dated 3.11.2006. Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment and decree, a time barred appeal was filed before the Additional District Judge, Bathinda, by the father of the petitioner. It may be pointed out that along with this aforesaid appeal, an application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal CR No.4051 of 2010(O&M) 2 was also filed. It may also be mentioned that during the pendency of the aforesaid application for condonation of delay, father of the petitioner, had died and the petitioner and proforma respondents No.4 to 8 were allowed to be impleaded as his legal heirs. It is a matter of record that the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was allowed on 12.3.2009 subject to payment of costs of Rs.2,000/-. Vide impugned order, the Lower Appellate Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay for non-compliance of the order dated 12.3.2009. Consequently, the appeal was also dismissed as time barred. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. There is nothing on record of this petition from which it can be made out that how much was the delay in filing the appeal. Even on a specific question, learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to inform this Court with regard to period of delay in filing the appeal before the Additional District Judge, Bathinda. Neither the conditional order dated 12.3.2009 passed by the Lower Appellate Court condoning the delay subject to payment of costs has been placed on record nor the same is reproduced in this petition. Even, it has not been mentioned in this revision petition that the aforesaid conditional order was to be complied with upto which date. It has been simply mentioned before this Court that the petitioner could not pay the costs of Rs.2,000/- as the order dated 12.3.2009 was not to their knowledge. Even at the time of passing of the impugned order, no costs were paid. Nor any application was made to enlarge the time granted by the Court. In view of the aforesaid facts, the plea of the petitioner to the effect that conditional order dated 12.3.2009 was not to his knowledge, cannot be accepted. The conduct of the petitioner is not bona fide. Thus, I find no ground to invoke my jurisdiction under Article CR No.4051 of 2010(O&M) 3 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere in the impugned order. Dismissed. July 2, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE