R.S.A. No. 211 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 211 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 13.1.2009 Arshdeep Singh and another ....Appellants Versus Surinder Kaur and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: Mr. H.S. Kamboj, Advocate, for the appellants. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) C.M. No. 455-C of 2009 This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 341 days in filing the appeal. It has been averred in the application that the delay has occurred due to lapse on the part of office of the counsel. It is well settled law that party should not be allowed to suffer on account of mistake of counsel. Consequently, this application is allowed and the delay of 341 in filing the appeal is condoned. R.S.A. No. 211 of 2009 This regular second appeal is directed against the judgments and decrees dated 16.1.2007 and 18.10.2007 passed by the learned Courts below vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellants seeking declaration and permanent injunction has been ordered to be dismissed. The plaintiffs claimed that they were entitled to injunction as the collusive decree dated 6.5.1992 passed in favour of the defendants was illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff/appellants, R.S.A. No. 211 of 2009 (O&M) -2- on the plea that the property in hand of Makhan Singh, grandfather of the plaintiff/appellants was ancestral coparcenary property and, therefore, he could not have suffered a collusive decree, to prejudice of their rights. The learned Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that no evidence was brought on record to prove the ancestral nature of the property. The Courts further held that the father of the plaintiffs was alive when the decree was passed and chose not to challenge the same. The plaintiffs at the time of passing of consent decree not even born and, therefore, had no locus standi to challenge the transfer made much prior to their birth specially when their father was alive and had not chosen to challenge the alienation. Be as it may be, once the plaintiffs failed to lead any evidence to prove that the property in hand of Makhan Singh was ancestral coparcenary property, the learned Courts below were right in dismissing the suit. The concurrent findings of fact cannot be said to perverse or outcome of mis-reading of evidence brought on record. No substantial question of law arises for consideration by this Court. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge January 13, 2009 R.S.