CR No.3764 of 2008 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CM No.11037-CII of 2009 and CR No.3764 of 2008 Date Of Decision: 14.05.2009 **** Sukhjinder Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. Sher Singh and others . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG **** Present: Mr. Vivek Rattan, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. K.S. Boparai, Advocate for respondent No.1 to 5 **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J.(ORAL) CM No.11037-CII of 2009 Application is allowed subject to just exceptions. Amended memo of parties is taken on record. Sh. K.S. Boparai, Advocate appears on behalf of respondents No.1 to 5 who are the legal representatives of Sher Singh and who are the contesting respondents. CR No.3764 of 2008 This revision petition has been filed by the defendants challenging the order dated 6.2.2008 whereby the appeal filed by CR No.3764 of 2008 - 2 - them against the order dated 8.6.2006 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana on application of the plaintiff- respondent filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 was allowed. The aforesaid appeal of the petitioners was dismissed by the lower appellate court on the ground that the same was beyond limitation by 18 days. Challenging the aforesaid order learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the lower appellate court erred at law while dismissing the application filed by the petitioners for condoning the aforesaid delay of 18 days in filing the appeal resulting into dismissal of appeal being time-barred. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 was allowed by the trial Court on 08.06.2006 and the summer vacations started on 15.6.2006. The appellant applied for the copy of the aforesaid order on 10.7.2006 which was delivered on 31st July, 2006 and thereafter the present appeal was filed on 30th August, 2006. Thus from the above facts it is crystal clear that the petitioner could not apply the certified copy of the impugned order because of ensuing summer vacations. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has opposed this revision petition and has supported the impugned order by arguing that the same has been passed in accordance with the law. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record of this revision petition. The delay in filing the appeal was only of 18 days and the petitioner has given the reasons which prevented him from filing his appeal in time. It may also be noted that there is nothing CR No.3764 of 2008 - 3 - on record to show that the reasons for not filing the appeal within time were not bona fide. Even if the petitioner was negligent in pursuing his remedy yet in the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the petitioner should have been heard on merits. Thus, I find that there were sufficient reason for condoning the delay. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the lower Appellate Court with the direction to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 8.6.2006 on merits. Civil Revision disposed of. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) MAY 14, 2009 JUDGE shonkar