CR No. 6570 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.6570 of 2008 Decided on : 28-11-2008 Didar Singh ....Petitioner VERSUS Nirmal Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. Vineet Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. MAHESH GROVER, J This revision petition is directed against the order of the Additional District Judge, Ambala dated 1st October, 2008 by which an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act preferred by the respondent was allowed. Petitioner Didar Singh instituted a suit for possession of the land by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 22.3.90 against Bhag Singh, his wife Gurmail Kaur and minor son Nirmal Singh praying for a direction that the defendants in the suit be directed to execute the sale deed in his favour. The gift deed in favour of Gurmail Kaur and Nirmal Singh was also challenged by way of civil suit no.60 of 14.2.1990. The suit was contested by the defendants to contend that the gift deed was perfectly valid and the agreement to sell was denied. The Trial Court decided all the issues in favour of the respondents and decreed the suit in the year 1999 against which an appeal was preferred by the present respondent Nirmal Singh, the minor son of Bhag Singh who preferred the appeal through his paternal uncle for setting aside the decree. CR No. 6570 of 2008 2 Alongwith appeal an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed. The Appellate Court partly accepted the appeal vide its order dated 12.4.2002 and passed a decree for recovery of Rs. 20,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of execution of the said agreement in favour of the present petitioner and against the respondent. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act remained un- answered. In Regular Second Appeal no. 2711 of 2002 this Court vide its order dated 17.8.2007 remitted the matter back to the Appellate Authority to decide the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and thereafter proceeded to determine the controversy. Pursuant to the above, the said application has now being decided vide impugned order dated 1.10.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the appeal was filed after an inordinate delay of 942 days and, therefore, there was no sufficient reason for the Appellant Authority to have condoned the delay. That apart it was contended that minor Nirmal Singh had attained the age of majority in the year 2003 and there is no cogent explanation why the application has been accepted now in the year 2008. Further it was contended that the minor was always represented by his father who was watching his interest and therefore, no prejudice was caused to him and consequently application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act could not have been decided in his favour. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Concededly when the Appellate Authority passed the order on 12.4.2002, the respondent was a minor. The matter was remanded back under the orders of this Court. Therefore, the Appellate Authority was under a bounden duty to decide the application under Section 5 of the CR No. 6570 of 2008 3 Limitation Act as it existed on that particular date when it was filed. Respondent being a minor was entitled for the protection of the Court as well. No such application apparently had been moved for appointment of Court Guardian. His plea that his father was not prosecuting his case was further borne out from the fact that his father Bhag Singh neither led any evidence and rather permitted an ex parte order to come into existence against him. In this view of the matter, impugned order cannot be said to be suffering from any infirmity as the Court has given reasons for the condonation of delay. No merit. Dismissed. November 28 , 2008 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge