Civil Revision No. 6605 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6605 of 2009 Date of decision : 19.3.2010 Labh Kaur and others ....Petitioners Versus Harbhajan Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Sandeep Chhabra, Advocate for the petitioners. S. D. ANAND, J. The petitioners herein (and defendants before the learned Trial Court) filed an appeal against the order dated 2.4.2008 granted by the learned Trial Court vide which the former were restrained from alienating the land in suit during the pendency of the trial. Alongwith the appeal, the petitioner filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act with a view to obtain the leave of the Court to condone the delay of 212 days in filing thereof. The averment, made in support thereof, was that the parties had actually arrived at a compromise and it was on account of the compromise only that she did not file an appeal. She thought of filing of the appeal and after party opposite retracted from the compromise. The plea did not find favour with the learned Ist Appellate Court. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, argues that the Court ought to have adopted an attitude of indulgence in view of the fact that it is only on account of the conduct of the party opposite (in retracting from the compromise) that the filing of the appeal was occasioned. Civil Revision No. 6605 of 2009 -2- The plea is neither here nor there. If the compromise had materialised, there was no occasion for the party opposite to retract therefrom. If the compromise had not materialised in toto, the petitioner herein could have waited for only a reasonable period for and not for such a long period. It is not even the averment on behalf of the petitioner that they have filed a plea before the Civil Court for enforcement of the compromise, the terms whereof are also not indicated. In the light of foregoing discussion, I have no reservation in affirming the finding recorded by the learned Ist Appellate court to the effect that petitioner herein has not been able to prove the sufficiency of ground for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. In response to a verbal presentation, it is ordered that the relevant civil suit (which was instituted in the year 2005) shall be disposed of by the learned Trial Court within six months from the next date of hearing. Both the parties shall have equal number of opportunities to adduce their evidence. Disposed of accordingly. March 19, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE