RSA No.3478 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3478 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 04.11.2011 Sudesh Kumari & Ors. ...Appellants Vs. Jit Ram & Ors. ...Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Mohd. Yousaf, Advocate, for the appellants. --- A.N.Jindal, J. Trial court vide judgment dated 2.3.2007 had partly decreed the suit of the plaintiffs for declaration to the effect that plaintiff No.2 is the owner in possession to the extent of 1/4th share of the suit property and Jit Ram defendant No.1 now respondent, Jagan Nath, respondent No.2 and Hari Dass (deceased) now represented by legal representatives are the owners in possession of the suit property to the extent of 3/4th share, in equal shares. However, suit of the plaintiffs qua the relief of permanent injunction was declined. Against the said judgment, the plaintiffs/appellants, came up in appeal wherein the first appellate court partly allowed the appeal to the extent that defendants No.1 and 2 and legal heirs of Hari Dass would remain restrained from alienating the suit property RSA No.3478 of 2011 2 more than their shares and would not dispossess the plaintiffs/appellants from the property in dispute illegally and forcibly, except in due course of law. However, still heirs of Amrik Rai in whose favour no relief has been granted, have preferred second appeal. This appeal being time barred by 722 days is accompanied by an application for condonation of delay. Appellants have claimed that since they were not aware about the legal implications and they were told by their counsel that he would inform them regarding the fate of appeal but he did not perform his obligation and they came to know about the result of appeal through their relative in the month of May, 2009 and thereafter they applied for the certified copies of the judgment and decree of the courts below. Heard, no affidavit of the person who informed the appellants about the date of the case has been placed on record. The appellants should have been vigilant and take care of the case but they failed in their duty. The excuse cannot be said to be genuine. As such, I do not find any ground to condone the inordinate delay. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Resultantly, the appeal is also dismissed. (A.N.Jindal) 04.11.2011 Judge rp