RSA No.4932 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** RSA No.4932 of 2009 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 12.10.2010 **** Labh Chand @ Rodi and others . . . . Appellants Vs. Naraini Bai and another . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: - Dr.Pankaj Nanhera, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.Amandeep Singh, Advocate for the respondents. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. (ORAL) CM No.14594-C-2009 RSA No.4932 of 2009 (O&M) This is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of 168 days in filing of the appeal. In this case, suit for recovery was filed by Naraini Bai against four defendants namely, Milakh Raj, Labh Chand @ Rodi, Lal Chand and Dharmo Bai. The learned trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 15.05.2007 decreed the suit of the plaintiff against all the defendants for a sum of `2 lacs along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of payment. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the trial Court only Dharmo Bai filed Civil Appeal No.28-CA of 2007 which was allowed by Additional District Judge, Sirsa vide its judgment and decree dated 16.3.2009 to the effect that “it is ordered that, keeping in view the findings of the learned Civil Judge on issue No.1, the suit in question could not have been decreed against appellant. Therefore, while modifying the relief clause granted by the Ld. Civil Judge in the impugned Judgment and Decree, it is ordered that the appellant Dharmo Bai shall not be liable to pay the awarded/granted compensation. However, since the impugned RSA No.4932 of 2009 (O&M) -2- judgment and decree qua the proforma respondents has attained finality, the same is upheld qua them. The instant appeal is accordingly partly allowed and partly dismissed in the above stated manner leaving the parties to bear their own costs.” The present appellants, who did not file the First Appeal, have now come up for Regular Second Appeal before this Court along with the present application for condonation of delay of 168 days in filing of the appeal. The ground taken in the said application is that the appeal filed by Dharmo Bai against the judgment and decree of the trial court would take care of their cause as well in terms of Order 41 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’). Therefore, it is alleged that learned counsel for the appellants in the Courts below had advised them not to challenge the judgment and decree of trial Court. It is really strange that the appellants have filed this application with such averments before this Court without assigning any reason for approaching this Court after such a delay. The question as to whether the appeal filed by one of the defendants would be treated as the appeal filed on behalf of all the respondents was to be seen by the learned First Appellate Court but once the First Appellate Court has given its categorical finding that Dharmo Bai shall not be liable to pay the awarded compensation, the other defendants/appellants should have immediately filed the appeal before this Court within the period of 90 days in accordance with law. But there is no sufficient reason whatsoever given in the application as to why delay has been caused in approaching this Court. In view thereof, I do not find any merit for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed. Consequently the appeal is also dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) OCTOBER 12, 2010 JUDGE Vivek