Punjab-Haryana High Court
The Executive Officer Of Market ... vs Pritam Kumar on 6 September, 2022
CR-1643-2020 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(107) CR-1643-2020
Date of Decision: 06.09.2022
The Executive Officer of Market Committee, Bhiwani
...-Petitioner
Versus
Pritam Kumar ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Present: Mr. Padam Kant Dwivedi, Advocate
for the petitioner.
3K 2k 2 3
HARKESH MANUJA, J.(ORAL)
1. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 02.04.2019 (Annexure
P-4) passed by the learned first Appellate Court whereby an application filed
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, filed at the instance of the petitioner
along with the first appeal has been dismissed, finding no sufficient reasons
for condonation of delay.
2. The facts leading to the present case are that the
respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration against petitioner/defendants
claiming ownership of suit property i.e plot No.4 in Anaj Mandi, Jui, Tehsil
and District Bhiwani, on the basis of an allotment order No.354, dated
01.08.2001. The respondent further challenged the notice dated 03.11.2009
vide which he was called upon to pay interest/penal interest on the extension
fee etc. Further, a prayer for grant of injunction was also made.
3. The learned trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated
30.08.2012, decreed the suit filed by respondent. Having accepted the
judgment and decree dated 30.08.2012 and without agitating the issue any
ssvogos ieee further, for more than a period of 3 years, an appeal came to be filed at the
| attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
MANPREET SINGH
2022.09.06 18:33
CR-1643-2020 2
instance of the petitioner before the learned District Judge, Bhiwani on
24.12.2015 along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act
seeking condonation of delay of 3 years 3 months and 18 days as well.
4. It is the said application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act,
which has been dismissed by the learned District Judge, Bhiwani vide its
impugned order dated 02.04.2019 holding that there has been plausible
reasons or explanation rendered in the application filed at the instance of the
petitioner.
5. On a pointed query from the learned counsel representing the
petitioner, he has informed that the respondent/plaintiff raised construction
over the plot in question after the decision rendered by the learned trial Court
on 30.08.2012 and before filing of the first appeal on 24.12.2015. Once, the
petitioner did not challenge the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2012 during
the period, the respondent/plaintiff was raising the construction over the plot
in question and this fact was duly in their knowledge, the reason mentioned by
them in their application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as based on
administrative exigencies and that too seeking condonation of an inordinate
delay of 3 years 3 months and 18 days cannot be accepted. In fact, it is the
petitioner/department, who has been sleeping over the matter and in the
meanwhile, substantial rights have accrued in favour of _ the
respondent/plaintiff, who has raised construction over the plot in question.
6. In addition, a perusal of application filed by the petitioner under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which has been placed on record along with
the present revision petition as Annexure P-2 at page 21 of the paper-book
shows that the vague averments therein do not constitute any sufficient cause
for condoning the unexplained and inordinate delay in filing the appeal.
Paragraph No.3 of the said application is reproduced hereunder:-
| attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
CR-1643-2020 3
"That thereafter the staff of Market Committee were
transferred and on joining by the newer staff, file was
being perused and Counsel was contacted and in this way
total 3 years 3 months and 18 days were spent. The delay
in filing the appeal is out of control and unavoidable and
hence, the present appeal is being filed so the delay as
above is prayed to be condoned."
7. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I do not find any reason to
interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the learned first Appellate
Court. Accordingly, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed.
(HARKESH MANUJA)
JUDGE
September 06, 2022
Manpreet
Whether speaking/reasoned __: Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
MANPREET SINGH
2022.09.06 18:33
| attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
