Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dharmender vs Sdo Sub Division Uhbvnl Kharkhoda ... on 5 July, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:085536
CR-1884-2022(O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR-1884-2022(O&M)
Reserved on:-3.7.2023
Date of Pronouncement:-5.7.2023
Dharmender
...Petitioner
Versus
SDO(OP), Sub Division, UHBVNL, Kharkhoda, District Sonipat and ors.
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S.MADAAN
Present: Ms.Varuna Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr.Prateek Mahajan, Advocate with
Mr.Vasu Gupta, Advocate
for the respondents.
****
H.S. MADAAN, J.
1. Being challenged in this revision petition is the order dated
11.3.2022 passed by Additional District Judge, Sonepat vide which he had
dismissed the application for condonation of delay of 169 days in filing of
civil appeal and as a result the appeal was dismissed being time barred.
2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that plaintiff Dharmender,
who is revision petitioner before this Court, had filed a civil suit for
declaration and permanent injunction against defendants i.e. SDO (OP),
Sub Division, UHBVNL, Kharkhoda, District Sonepat and others
contending that he is a consumer of electricity supplied by the defendants;
the electricity meter on the wall outside premises of the plaintiff was
found in broken condition and on being informed officials of defendants
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:085536
CR-1884-2022(O&M) -2-
inspected the meter on 31.5.2017; a new meter was installed by officials
of defendants on 22.7.2017; subsequently a notice was sent to the plaintiff
on the allegations that plaintiff was consuming the electricity more than
the sanctioned load thereby indulging in theft of electricity and plaintiff
was asked to pay penalty of Rs.8,44,512/- and Rs.9,000/-. Feeling
aggrieved, the plaintiff had brought the suit in question.
3. The suit was resisted by the defendants by filing written
statement raising various legal pleas, on merits asserting that plaintiff was
indulging in theft of electricity by way of tampering the meter and was
caught red handed by the checking party, therefore, penalty was rightly
imposed upon him and suit should be dismissed. Issues on merits were
framed. The plaintiff was afforded several opportunities to lead evidence
but he failed to examine even a single witness inasmuch as did not appear
in the witness-box himself to get his statement recorded. No document
was also produced in evidence. Therefore, the evidence of plaintiff was
closed under Order 17 Rule 3 CPC and thereafter the suit was dismissed
by the trial Court of Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Kharkhoda vide
judgment and decree dated 17.1.2020.
4. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff had preferred an appeal
before District Judge, Sonepat but it was filed belatedly by 169 days. An
application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed for
condonation of delay contending that the previous counsel representing
the appellant/plaintiff had not informed the appellant/plaintiff regarding
passing of impugned judgment and decree, therefore delay was not
intentional or wilful, as such it be condoned.
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:085536
CR-1884-2022(O&M) -3-
5. The application was resisted by the respondents.
6. Vide the impugned order the prayer for condonation of delay
was rejected and consequently the appeal was dismissed being time
barred, leaving the appellant/plaintiff aggrieved and he has approached
this Court by way of filing the present revision petition.
7. On being given notice, the respondents put in appearance
through counsel.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides going
through the record and I find that there is absolutely no merit in the
revision petition.
9. It needs to be taken into consideration that revision petitioner
was accused of indulging in theft of electricity and penalty was imposed
upon him for the said reason by the defendants. The revision
petitioner/plaintiff had challenged that action of defendants by way of
filing the suit but he failed to prosecute the suit in a proper and
appropriate manner inasmuch as he did not bring on record even an iota of
evidence to support his version. He himself did not step into the witness-
box to support his case, therefore, his evidence was closed by order and
suit was dismissed by the trial Court.
10. Thus, it comes out that revision petitioner/plaintiff has been
grossly negligent and careless in prosecuting the suit and his such
approach continued even when he had filed the appeal. He did not bother
to file the appeal within stipulated period, rather it was filed belatedly by
169 days. No cogent or convincing reason could be explained for such
delay in approaching the Appellate Court. The reason mentioned in the
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:085536
CR-1884-2022(O&M) -4-
application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of
delay that previous counsel for the plaintiff did not inform him regarding
the passing of judgment and decree by the trial Court does not seem to be
convincing and plausible. It is for a litigant to keep in touch with his
counsel so as to prosecute his case properly. The blame cannot be shifted
to the counsel for not keeping litigant, who had engaged him informed
with regard to progress of the case.
11. Though the counsel for the revision petitioner tried to render
an explanation that on account of breaking out of Covid-19 Pandemic,
revision petitioner could not contact his counsel and get the appeal filed in
time and she had referred to order passed by the Apex Court in
Miscellaneous application No.21 of 2022 etc. with regard to cognizance
for extension of limitation. But this order does not help the revision
petitioner in any manner for the reason that no such plea has been taken in
the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and similarly before
learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat, no submission in that regard
has been made. Learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat in the
impugned order has observed that copy of judgment and decree attached
with the grounds of appeal had been prepared after expiry of period of
limitation of 30 days and no plausible explanation had been given as to
why the appellant had not contacted his counsel for such a long period.
The story set up by the plaintiff/appellant in the application was not found
to be trustworthy.
12. Learned counsel for the respondents has also referred to
various judgments in support of his contention that without cogent and
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:085536
CR-1884-2022(O&M) -5-
convincing reasons having been provided by the applicant, delay in filing
of an appeal should not be condoned. The first judgment referred to by
him was Sagufa Ahmed & Ors. Versus Upper Assam Plywood Products
Pvt. Ltd. and others, 2021(2) SCC 317 by the Supreme Court wherein it
was observed that appellants cannot claim benefit of order in which
Supreme Court in its order enlarged period up to which delay can be
condoned. He has further referred to judgment passed by a Division
Bench of this Court in LPA-301-2020(O&M) titled 'State of Haryana
Versus Ram Rattan and others' and other cases, wherein it was observed
that in absence of furnishing of sufficient or satisfactory explanation for
condonation of delay, the delay cannot be condoned. In the third judgment
i.e. P.K. Ramachandran Versus State of Kerala, 1997(4) RCR(Civil) 242
referred to by learned counsel for the respondents by the Supreme Court,
it was observed that law of limitation has to be applied with all its rigour
when the statute so prescribes and the Courts have no power to extend the
period of limitation on equitable grounds.
13. The impugned order passed by the Additional District Judge,
Sonepat is quite detailed and well reasoned and it does not suffer from any
illegality or infirmity and is not having any element of arbitrariness or
perversity. The revisional jurisdiction of this Court is quite limited and
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no reason to
interfere with the impugned order by way of exercising the revisional
jurisdiction.
14. Finding no merit in the revision petition, the same stands
dismissed.
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:085536
CR-1884-2022(O&M) -6-
Since the main revision petition has been dismissed, the
miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
5.7.2023 (H.S.MADAAN)
Brij JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:085536
6 of 6
