Civil Revision No.5548 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5548 of 2009 Date of decision: 29.11.2010 Dhanpati ....Petitioner Versus Krishna and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. Arvind Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) Present petition is filed challenging the order dated 5.9.2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Panipat, thereby rejecting the application filed by the appellant/petitioner seeking condonation of eight months' delay in filing the appeal against the judgment dated 2.1.2008 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Panipat, In the application, seeking condonation of delay, appellant/petitioner herein has pleaded that she has appointed her own son as power of attorney to file an appeal and has given all the expenses and counsel fee to her son and her son did not file the appeal, which she came to know only after eight months. It is worth-mentioning that respondents No.1 and 2 are real daughters of the petitioner. Petitioner being mother is contesting a cause against her own daughters and now blaming her own son that he could not file appeal for the reasons best known to him. Learned appellate Civil Revision No.5548 of 2009 -2- Court did not agree with the case taken by the appellant/petitioner and dismissed the application seeking condonation of delay. In the opinion of this Court petitioner has failed to explain sufficient reasons for delay. Petitioner has to blame herself for negligence of her own son-power of attorney. Petitioner is not saying that her son-power of attorney has played any fraud on her. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case I do not find any reason to take contrary view from the view taken by the appellate Court. Hon'ble Apex Court in a recent judgment in the matter of Jai Singh and others Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and another reported in 2010(9) SCC 385 has observed that power under Article 227 should not be invoked lightly to correct every error or mistake committed by the Courts below. From the perusal of the record and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I find that learned appellate Court has rightly refused to condone the delay. Dismissed. (Alok Singh) Judge November 29, 2010 R.S.