CM No.13025-C of 2010 &RSA No.4391 of 2010 (O&M) -3- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.4391 of 2010 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 25.11.2010 **** PUDA (Punjab Urban Development Authority) Jalandhar and another . . . . Appellants Vs. Narinder Kumari . . . . Respondent **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: - Mr.B.S. Mangat, Advocate for the appellants. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. (ORAL) CM No.13205-C of 2010 and RSA No.4391 of 2010 (O&M) This is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of 115 days in filing of the appeal. Plaintiff filed the suit for recovery which was decreed for an amount of Rs.2,63,851/- with 8% interest per annum on the decretal amount from the date of issuance of cheque (Ex.P-1) till its CM No.13025-C of 2010 &RSA No.4391 of 2010 (O&M) -3- realization. The said judgment and decree of the trial Court was challenged by the present appellants by way of Civil Appeal No.37 of 16.5.2009 titled as PUDA (Punjab Urban Development Authority) Jalandhar and another Vs. Narinder Kumari, which was dismissed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Kapurthala by her judgment and decree dated 23.4.2010. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree of both the Courts below, the present appeal is preferred by PUDA on 23.11.2010. After deducting the 90 days permissible for filing of the appeal, the Registry of this Court had found that there is a delay of 115 days in filing of the appeal. The appellants thus filed the exact days in present application for condonation of delay in which it is mentioned that “inadvertently the judgments of both the Courts below have been put in another brief in the office of PUDA, Jalandhar. In the month of October, 2010 the same was traced out by the office clerk of PUDA, Jalandhar. In this process a delay of 115 days has occurred in filing the appeal”. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants/appellants has pressed only this ground before this Court for the purpose of seeking condonation of delay but on perusal of record, this Court has found that certified copy of the impugned judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court itself was applied on 02.08.2010 after the expiry of 101 days from the date of passing of the judgment and decree dated 23.4.2010. The application for condonation of delay is supported by an affidavit of Harbir Singh, PCS, Land Acquisition Officer-cum-ACA, PUDA, Jalandhar, who has suppressed this fact from this Court that the certified copy was even taken after the expiry of limitation and has canvassed a frivolous ground that after obtaining certified copy of the judgment and decree of both the Courts below they were put in another brief in the office of PUDA and were traced out in the month of October 2010 and then the present appeal is filed. In my opinion, the application lacks bonafide as also sufficient cause for the purpose of condonation of delay and as such the same is hereby dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed. The most important question is as to why the Land CM No.13025-C of 2010 &RSA No.4391 of 2010 (O&M) -3- Acquisition Officer-cum-ACA, PUDA, Jalandhar ,through whom the present appeal is filed has concealed this fact from this Court that certified copy of the impugned judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court was applied even after the expiry of period of limitation to file the present appeal. Is he not guilty of “suppresso veri and suggesto falsi” or he is insensitive to the Court proceedings and casual in the dischargeof his official functions or he has connived with the plaintiff in not obtaining the certified copy in time to file the appeal within the period of limitation to help him in this suit for recovery ?. The answer to these questions is to be found. Hence, I direct the Chief Secretary, Punjab, to order an enquiry in this case against the concerned official and submit the enquiry report as well as action taken, if any, to this Court within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Registry is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the Chief Secretary, Punjab for necessary compliance of the direction Registry is also directed to list this case for perusal of this Court exactly after the expiry of six months from the date when the certified copy of this order is despatched to the Chief Secretary, Punjab. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) NOVEMBER 25, 2010 JUDGE rr