C.R No. 3230 of 2008 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R No. 3230 of 2008 Date of decision : July 30, 2009 Sunil Kumar ...... Petitioner v. Mahavir Prasad and another, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Sudhanshu Makkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Alok Jain, Advocate for respondent No.1. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This revision petition has been filed against the order of the lower appellate Court dated 7.3.2008 dismissing the application of the petitioner for condonation of delay of one year five months and twenty three days in filing the appeal. The petitioner purchased the house in dispute. In the sale deed it was specifically mentioned that a dispute regarding ownership of the wall C.R No. 3230 of 2008 ::2:: of the passage is pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Bhiwani. The petitioner on his own showing took no steps to follow the proceedings. The original owner went exparte and the suit was decreed. The petitioner filed an appeal accompanied by an application for condonation of delay of one year five months and twenty three days. That application having been dismissed, the present petition has been filed. The main ground taken by the Court below is the specific stipulation in the sale deed whereby the petitioner was put to notice about the pendency of the civil suit. In the circumstances, it cannot lie in the mouth of the petitioner to urge that he had no knowledge of the suit and, thus, could not file the appeal in time. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that Courts are liberal with regard to condonation of delay particularly where the original owner has abandoned litigation due to extraneous considerations. Faced with this, I put it to counsel for the petitioner that the respondents had not only to prosecute the appeal and this revision, even the execution filed by them has been rendered infructuous, and in the event of this petition being allowed the civil suit will have to start from the stage where it was four years ago. In the circumstances, I propose costs of Rs.50,000/- to be paid to the respondents by the petitioner subject to which the prayer made in this revision petition could be considered. Counsel for the petitioner on telephonic instructions from his client states that the petitioner is not prepared to pay Rs.50,000/- as costs. Consequently, this petition is dismissed being devoid of merit, with no order as to costs. As the main petition has since been disposed of, all the C.R No. 3230 of 2008 ::3:: pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) July 30, 2009. JUDGE `kk'