Civil Revision No. 4157 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4157 of 2009 Date of decision : 28.5.2010 Kulbhushan Joshi ....Petitioner Versus M/s JCT Electronics Limited ......Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Ashok Sharma Nabhewala, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate for the respondent. S. D. ANAND, J. The petitioner was in the employment of the respondent- company and it is on account of that employment only that the premises under reference (hereinafter referred to “the premises”) came to be allowed to him. The petitioner tendered his resignation from employment on 23.11.2001 which came to be accepted on 28.11.2001. The petitioner challenged that acceptance and the matter is pending consideration at the hands of learned labour Court. The respondent-company filed a suit for grant of a mandatory injunction to the petitioner-licencee to vacate the house which came to be allotted to him on account of employment aforementioned. The suit was decreed by the learned Trial Court, Civil Revision No. 4157 of 2009 -2- **** vide judgment and decree dated 17.3.2007. The petitioner-licencee filed an appeal to challenge that judgment and decree. Along therewith, the petitioner also filed a plea under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to obtain the condonation of delay of 212 days in filing of the appeal. The matter was adjudicated upon by the learned Appellate Court against the petitioner. The petitioner is in revision against it. The learned Ist Appellate Court on appraisal of the evidence adduced, negatived the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that delay (in the filing of the appeal) occurred as intimation about the disposal of the suit had not been given to him by the learned counsel. Learned Ist Appellate Court noticed the want of evidence to prove that the learned counsel representing plaintiff- petitioners did not indicate disposal of the suit to him. The learned counsel who represented plaintiffs before the Trial Court was the best circumstanced to own the attribution but he was not examined to support the averment aforementioned. I find myself in complete agreement with the finding recorded by the learned Ist Appellate Court, and also reasoning recorded in support thereof. The petitioner was throughout represented by a duly instructed counsel. That learned counsel was best circumstanced to own up the averment that it was he who refrained from intimating the disposal of the suit to the petitioner. There is no explanation, much less plausible, on the record to Civil Revision No. 4157 of 2009 -3- **** indicate why that learned counsel could not be examined in support of the averment. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, relied upon Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another Vs. Mst. Katiji and others AIR 1987 Supreme Court 1353 to argue that Courts should be liberal in condoning delay. The plea raised is misconceived and the ruling relied upon inapplicable for want of parallel of circumstances in that case and the case before this Court. That was a case in which it was held that the State, as a litigant must get the treatment similar to a private litigant and that step motherly treatment to the State in the matter of appreciation of plea for for condonation of delay could not be warranted. For the very reasons recorded by the learned Ist Appellate court, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The petition shall stand dismissed accordingly. May 28, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE Civil Revision No. 4157 of 2009 -4- ****