Civil Revision No. 6223 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6223 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.09.2010 The Inspecting Officer, Housefed ....Petitioner Versus Sukhdev Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. S.S. Rangi, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) The petitioner has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court to challenge the order dated 26.5.2010, passed by the learned appellate Court, vide which the application moved by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the appeal, has been ordered to be dismissed. Plaintiff/respondent No.1 filed a suit for mandatory injunction, directing the Punjab State Federation of Cooperative House Building Society, Chandigarh and others to implement the debt relief scheme for November, 1984 riot affected borrowers and to waive off the loan upto `50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only). The plaintiff/respondent also prayed for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from recovering the balance loan from the plaintiff. The suit was contested. The plaintiff led evidence in support of this case pleaded, whereas defendant/petitioner failed to lead any evidence in spite of availing number of opportunities. Civil Revision No. 6223 of 2010 (O&M) -2- In view of the ex parte evidence led by the plaintiff, which went unrebutted, the suit was decreed on 9.3.2005. The petitioner thereafter slept over the matter and it was after expiry of more than four years that the appeal was filed on 11.6.2009. The ground taken for seeking condonation of delay was, that the petitioner was not informed by the counsel about the passing of the decree. The plea taken by the petitioner for condonation of delay was, that the counsel had informed the petitioner that the plaintiff is likely to withdraw the suit and, in case, necessity arose, he would inform the petitioner for leading evidence in support of the defence set up, but the petitioner did not receive any information. However, nothing was disclosed as to what steps were taken by the petitioner during the period of four years, to find out as to whether the plaintiff had withdrawn the suit or not. The application was opposed and one of the issues framed was, “whether there was sufficient ground to condone the delay in filing the appeal”. The learned appellate Court did not accept the version put up by the petitioner, as the evidence led did not inspire any confidence, as the witness of the petitioner was unable to give any reasons for not following the case, though he admitted that he used to attend the case regularly. The learned appellate Court further held, that nothing was shown as to what action was taken against the counsel, against whom serious allegations were made. The story put up by the petitioner was, thus, disbelieved. The finding recorded by the learned appellate Court is based Civil Revision No. 6223 of 2010 (O&M) -3- on appreciation of evidence. The discretion exercised by the Court in declining the application for condonation of delay does not call for any interference by this Court, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, specially when on merits also the petitioner has hardly anything to contend as the petitioner admittedly did not lead any evidence in support of the defence. The unrebutted evidence of plaintiff/respondent to decree the suit was accepted. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge September 27, 2010 R.S.