C.R. No. 134 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 134 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: January 13, 2009 Darshan Singh and others .. Petitioners v. Dharam Singh and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Rajnish Narula, Advocate for the petitioners. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the learned court below, whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was dismissed and consequently the appeal as well. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that though the petitioners were owners of the land but they were not impleaded as defendants in the suit filed by respondent No.1 and on account of which they suffered prejudice and immediately after coming to know about the decree passed in the suit filed by respondent No.1, the petitioners filed appeal along with an application for condonation of delay. They came to know about the passing of the decree only on 3.5.2007. Immediately thereafter, copy of the judgment and decree was applied and after receipt of the same, the appeal along with application for condonation of delay was filed on 21.5.2007. Hence, there was no delay as such if the period is counted from the date the petitioners, who were not party to the suit, gained knowledge of the decree. The petitioners are adversely affected from the decree. The delay as such was not so substantial that the same should not have been condoned, as the effort of the court should be to decide the lis between the parties on merits instead of rejecting the same on technicalities. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. Notice in the application filed by the petitioners before the learned lower appellate court for condonation of delay was issued to the decree-holders, who questioned the locus standi of the petitioners to impugn the judgment and decree, stating that they had purchased the land during the pendency C.R. No. 134 of 2009 [2] of the suit and the sale deed is directly hit by the principle of lis pendens as they stepped into the shoes of their vendor. Even the delay was also not explained properly. It was further claimed that the petitioners were in fact having knowledge of the litigation regarding the property. Still, they purchased the property in question and on account of these facts, they should not be permitted to file the appeal belatedly, once they were not even party to the suit. Considering the aforesaid facts and also noticing the statement of AW1-Manjit Singh, who in his cross-examination admitted that litigation was going on between Karam Singh and Dharam Singh regarding the land in dispute and they never filed any application for being impleaded as party therein, the learned court below found that in fact the petitioners were aware of the litigation, but still they did not choose to be impleaded as party. Even otherwise, the property in question was purchased by them during the pendency of the suit. Accordingly, on the principle of lis pendens, they will be governed by the decree passed against their predecessors-in-interest. There is delay of about 6 months in filing the appeal which could not be justified from any reason, especially when the petitioners were not even party to the suit. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned court below dismissing the application filed by the petitioners for condonation of delay. The revision petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 13.1.2009 mk