Civil Revision No. 303 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 303 of 2009 Date of decision: 22.01.2009 Haman Kumar and another ...Petiitioners Versus Param Jasbir Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. P.K.Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** S.D.ANAND, J. The defendants-petitioners were duly represented by their counsel when a plea for ad-interim injunction was allowed by the learned Trial Court in favour of plaintiff-respondent, vide order dated 26.7.2004. In an appeal filed by the defendants-petitioners against that order much thereafter, defendants-petitioners applied for condonation of delay on the plea that order dated 26.7.2004 came to their notice only on 9.10.2004, whereafter they applied for the certified copies thereof which were supplied to them only on 25/27.11.2004. The averment, in the context, is that the learned counsel representing them never communicated the allowance of ad-interim stay application to defendants-petitioners. Learned Trial Court did not accept that explanation about the want of communication between the defendants-petitioners and their learned counsel. It further noticed that defendants-petitioners had, in any case, not been able to explain the delay intervening 9.10.2004 and Civil Revision No. 303 of 2009 -2- **** 25/27.11.2004. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the petitioners cannot be made to suffer for inaction on the part of their learned counsel who represented them before the Trial Court. The plea is neither here nor there. If a party is represented by duly authorised Counsel, it cannot be heard to argue want of communication from their counsel in order to raise a plea for condonation of delay, particularly when it is not even the averment that Counsel had withdrawn from the case. The defendants petitioners did not even place on record any affidavit of the learned Counsel representing them in the relevant behalf. In the totality of the circumstances of the case, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. January 22, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge