C.R. No.1928 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No.1928 of 2008 Date of Decision: 30.7.2008 Baldev Singh and others .....Petitioners Vs. Sher Singh ....Respondent .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. Manu K. Bhandari, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Arun Jindal, Advocate for the respondent. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) The petitioners impugn an order dated 23.1.2008, passed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala, whereby the petitioners' application for condonation of 35 days delay in the filing of the appeal has been dismissed. Counsel for the petitioners submits that though, on the date of pronouncement of the judgement, Baldev Singh was present in Court and was cross-examined but the petitioners were unaware that arguments had been addressed and judgement had been pronounced on this very day. The petitioners were under an erroneous impression that after conclusion of their cross-examination, the case would be adjourned for arguments and thereafter, for pronouncement of orders. On account of this bonafide error, on the part of the petitioners, the appeal could not be filed in time. Counsel for the respondent, however, states that it is not believable that a person present in Court, would not be aware that arguments had been heard and judgement had been pronounced. The petitioners' explanation of sufficient cause is, therefore, incorrect and C.R. No.1928 of 2008 2 malafide and was rightly rejected by the Court below. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. As a general rule, upon conclusion of evidence, trial Courts normally fix cases for rebuttal and arguments and thereafter for orders. It is only in rare circumstances that evidence concludes, arguments are heard and judgement is pronounced, on the same day. The submission by counsel for the petitioners that this departure from procedure normally followed by trial Courts mislead the petitioners into believing that after their cross- examination, the Court would adjourn the case to another date for arguments and thereafter for orders, appears to be prima facie correct and logical and, therefore, the petitioners' explanation for delay should have been accepted. Even otherwise, the petitioners had nothing to gain but in fact everything to loose by delaying the filing of the appeal. Courts favour adjudication on merits and discourage dismissal of cases on technical and procedural objections. In view of what has been stated herein above, the revision petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 23.1.2008 is set aside, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the appellate Court is directed to hear the appeal on merits, subject, however, to payment of Rs.5,000/- as costs. Parties are directed to appear before the Additional District Judge, Patiala, on 20.8.2008. 30.7.2008 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE