Civil Revision No.1429 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1429 of 2009 Date of Decision:17.03.2009 Balwant Singh ....petitioner Versus Balwinder Singh & Ors .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr.L.S.Sidhu,Advocate for the petitioner **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. This is defendant's revision petition challenging the order dated 13.01.2009 whereby the application filed by the petitioner before the Lower Appellate Court for condoning the delay in filing the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 20.11.2007 passed against him by Additional Civil Judge(Sr.Divn.)Zira, was dismissed. As per the averments made in this petition, the suit of the plaintiff-respondents for alternative relief of recovery of Rs.3 lacs along with interest @6% per annum from 13.03.1998 till its realization was decreed. Defendant/petitioner filed an appeal challenging the aforesaid judgment and decree in the Court of District Judge, Ferozepur on 04.02.2008. Along with this appeal, an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was filed. The aforesaid application was contested by the plaintiff-respondents. In spite of several opportunities given to the petitioner to prove his case for condonation of delay, the petitioners failed to produce any evidence, in this regard. Hence, the application filed by the petitioner for condoning the delay in filing the appeal was dismissed by the Civil Revision No.1429 of 2009 2 Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, vide impugned order dated 13.01.2009. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the averments made in the petition. In fact, the only ground raised in the revision petition is that the petitioner is an old man and his counsel was busy in other Court on 13.01.2009 when the case was called and the application for condonation of delay has not been considered on the merits of the case. In my view, the aforesaid ground raised by the petitioner in support of his case is without any merit. From the facts as noticed above, It is crystal clear that in spite of many opportunities granted to him, the petitioner had failed to produce on record any evidence in support of his case. It has been specifically mentioned in the impugned order that the case was called several times and no one had appeared on behalf of the appellant and further that opportunity was granted to the appellant to produce evidence subject to costs. Neither the petitioner was present nor any other person had come on his behalf and the application was dismissed under Order 9 Rule 2 CPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to challenge the facts as noticed in the impugned order. Thus, I find no merit in this petition. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 17.03.2009 neenu