Ghumarwin vs Krishani Devi Widow Of Late Shri
2021 Latest Caselaw 5882 HP

                                                         .

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

               ON THE 24th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021





                          BEFORE

         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATYEN VAIDYA, JUDGE

     CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION (MAIN) No. 1637 OF 2019

    BETWEEN:


    JEET RAM, S/O SH. PRABH DAYAL, R/O

    VILLAGE AMARPUR, PARGANA TIUN, TEHSIL

    GHUMARWIN, DISTRICT BILASPUR, H.P.

                             .............APPELLANT/ DEFENDANT NO.1

    ( BY SHRI J.R. POSWAL, ADVOCATE )



                    AND




    KRISHANI DEVI WIDOW OF LATE SHRI
    NAND LAL, R/O VILLAGE AMARPUR,





    PARGANA TIUN, TEHSIL GHUMARWIN,
    DISTRICT BILASPUR, H.P.





                                ................RESPONDENT/ PLAINTIFF



    (BY SHRI NARESH K. SHARMA, ADVOCATE FOR
     THE RESPONDENT)



               This petition coming on for orders this day, Hon'ble

    Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, delivered the following:




                                        ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:29:25 :::CIS
                                       2




                              ORDER

.

By way of instant application, the applicant has sought

condonation of delay in filing the Regular Second Appeal against

the judgment and decree dated 29.08.2018, passed by learned

Additional District Judge Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. in Civil

Appeal No. 35-13 of 2018.

2. It has been averred in the application that the applicant

could not file the appeal within the time prescribed by law for the

reason that

his counsel, who had represented him before the

lower Appellate Court, did not apprise him about the dismissal of

appeal till third week of August, 2019. He has also contended that

he was suffering from ailments and hence could not inquire about

the fate of his case.

3. Per contra, non-applicant-respondent has specifically

alleged that applicant has not disclosed the correct factual position.

The applicant had appeared through his counsel on 21.05.2019

before the learned Executing Court and had filed the reply in

execution petition arising out of the decree now sought to be

impugned by the applicant. The non-applicant-respondent has

placed on record a copy of order dated 21.05.2019 passed by

Senior Civil Judge, Ghumarwin, Distt. Bilaspur, H.P. and perusal of

its contents substantiate the contention of the respondent.

.

Further, perusal of documents annexed by the applicant alongwith

application for condonation of delay do not reveal that he was

suffering from such an ailment which prevented his physical

movement. Rather, the documents show that he had been

visiting Fortis Hospital, Mohali frequently as out door patient.

4. From the facts as have emerged from the rival

contention of the parties, justifiable reason for dealy in filing the

appeal are not made out. In the considered opinion of this Court,

the applicant does not deserve any discretion in view of the fact

that he has not approached the Court with clean hands. His

assertion that his counsel did not apprise him about the fate of the

appeal stands clearly falsified from his own conduct. The reasons

averred by him in the application for delay in filing the application,

are not genuine and are cleverly invented.

5. In view of above discussions, the application is

dismissed.

( Satyen Vaidya ) Judge 24th December, 2021 (sushma)

.