Civil Revision No. 3719 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3719 of 2010 Date of decision: 14.09.2010 Sardar Inder Singh ....Petitioner Versus Bahadur Singh ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Deepak Manchanda, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) The petitioner has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court to challenge the order dated 15.12.2009 passed by the learned District Judge, Faridabad, vide which the application moved by the petitioner for condoning the delay of 82 days in filing the appeal, was dismissed. Consequently, the appeal was also dismissed as time barred. The petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 18.1.2002 for total sale consideration of `2,50,000/- (Rupees two lac and fifty thousand only), out of which `1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only) was paid as earnest money. The suit was contested by the respondent by denying the execution of the sale agreement. Though, the onus to prove the due execution of the agreement was on the plaintiff/petitioner, however, he failed to lead any evidence. Civil Revision No. 3719 of 2010 -2- Consequently, the learned trial Court held, that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the parties had entered into agreement to sell with respect to house in question on 18.1.2002 for sale consideration of `2,50,000/- (Rupees two lac and fifty thousand only). Other issues were also decided against the plaintiff/petitioner for want of evidence. The suit filed by the plaintiff/petitioner was dismissed on 9.5.2009. However, no steps were taken to file appeal within the period of limitation. It was filed with a delay of 82 days. Plea taken for condonation of delay was, that the counsel representing the plaintiff/petitioner had not informed about the decision of the case. Though, the averments made in the application were not controverted by filing reply, the learned lower appellate Court gave an opportunity to the petitioner to prove the case by framing an issue as to whether there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay. The petitioner in his evidence failed to give date of knowledge, therefore, the learned Court did not accept the story put up by the petitioner, and held that as it was for the petitioner to explain the delay, therefore, the application was dismissed. No fault can be found with the finding recorded by the learned District Judge, as the evidence led by the petitioner did not make out sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 82 days in filing the appeal. In order to see whether there was prima facie merit in the appeal for condonation by learned appellate Court so that a liberal view of condonation of delay could be taken, the merit of appeal was also taken into. The reading of the judgment of the learned trial Court shows Civil Revision No. 3719 of 2010 -3- that the plaintiff/petitioner had failed to lead any evidence in support of the case, thus, there was no prima facie merit also in the appeal. No ground for condonation is, therefore, made out on this ground also. The finding of the learned appellate Court on application for condonation of delay being as per established law does not call for any interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge September 14, 2010 R.S.