Lakhwinder Singh Through Lrs And ... vs Jaipal And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 14070 P&H

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH
147

                                        1.   CR-3383-2022
                                             Date of decision: 10.11.2022

LAKHWINDER SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH
LRS AND OTHERS                                            ..Petitioners

                                   Versus

JAIPAL AND ANOTHER                                        ..Respondents

2. CR-3390-2022

LAKHWINDER SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS ..Petitioners

Versus

JAIPAL AND ANOTHER ..Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL Present: Mr. Ojas Bansal, Advocate for Mr. Sanjiv Kumar Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. S.N. Pillania, Advocate for respondents.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J(Oral)

This order shall dispose of CR-3383-2022 & CR-3390-

2022.

These two revision petitions have been filed assailing the

correctness of order passed by the First Appellate court on 28.07.2022,

while dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay of 287 days in filing

the appeal. The petitioner, while filing the appeal, filed an application

for seeking condonation of delay of 287 days.

Para 2 of the application reads as under:-

"2. That appellant could not file appeal within the prescribed period of limitation under wrong legal

1 of 2

advice and the appellant have not been advised to file appeal against the impugned judgment and decree as one civil revision against order dated 11.01.2008, for seeking possession of suit land is also pending. In this way, delay of 287 days has occurred in filing the present appeal."

The Appellate Court has found that the explanation

furnished for condoning the delay of 287 days is not sufficient. It has

further been found that the petitioners with malafide intention, are

adopting dilatory tactics to prolong the matter.

This Bench has heard the learned counsel representing the

parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paperbook.

It is evident from reading of para 2 of the application that

the petitioner has failed to furnish plausible explanation for the delay.

Moreover, neither the name of the person who gave wrong legal advice

has been disclosed nor any other particular for identification has been

mentioned. A decree of possession by way of specific performance of

the agreement to sell has already been passed against the petitioner.

Hence, no ground to interfere is made out.

Dismissed.

All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also

disposed of.

November 10th, 2022                              (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
Ay                                                     JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned                  :     Yes/No
Whether reportable                         :     Yes/No




                                  2 of 2