Punjab-Haryana High Court
Krishan Kumar vs Suresh And Others on 15 April, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050544
CR-922-2022 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:050544
1
132 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CR-922-2022 (O&M)
Date of decision :15.04.2024
Krishan Kumar ...Petitioner
Vs.
Suresh and others ...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. Nipun Vashisht, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Ankur Lal, Advocate
for the respondent No.4.
***
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. (Oral)
1. The First Appellate Court has refused to condone the delay of 05
months in filing the first appeal. Through this Appeal, the plaintiff assails the
correctness of such order.
2. Originally, the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of the
agreement to sell, in which, the trial Court granted an alternative relief of
recovery of the amount alongwith interest. While filing the first appeal, the
appellant filed application for condoning delay of approximately 05 months on
the ground that he and his father received injuries and were not maintaining
good health, hence, previously the appeal could not be filed within time.
3. The First Appellate Court has dismissed the application on the
ground that the appellant has not produced any medical evidence to prove that
he is not keeping good health.
4. Heard the learned counsel representing the parties at length and
with their able assistance perused the paper-book.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050544
CR-922-2022 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:050544
5. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that the view
taken by the First Appellate Court is myopic. He submits that the medical
reports pertaining to the petitioner's father were produced, which were
sufficient to prove the sufficient cause. He submits that the First Appellate
Court should have decided the appeal after condoning the delay.
6. Per contra, learned counsel representing respondent No. 4 submits
that the certified copy of the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was
available on 01.11.2016, however, the appeal was filed on 30.03.2017. He
submits that there is no explanation for seeking condonation of delay of 05
months.
7. This Court has considered the submissions made by learned
counsel representing the parties.
8. The First Appellate Court is the last Court of facts and law. The
First Appellate Court can re-appreciate the evidence while deciding the appeal,
which is not permissible in the second appeal. While considering the
application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, the Court is required
to take a pragmatic view, which advances the cause of justice. Here is a case
where the petitioner has proved that his father was not keeping good health and
was hospitalized. In such circumstances, even if, the petitioner failed to
produce his own medical record, however, the medical record pertaining to the
petitioner's father should have been sufficient to condone the delay. In such
like cases, the Court is required to take a holistic view while making efforts to
dispose of the matters after discussing merits of the case rather than in defaults.
9. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order
dated 07.07.2021 is set aside. The delay of 05 months in filing the first appeal
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050544
CR-922-2022 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:050544
is condoned with the direction to the First Appellate Court to decide the appeal
expeditiously.
10. The revision petition stands allowed.
11. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the
First Appellate Court on 15.05.2024. The first appeal is restored to its original
number.
(ANIL KSHETARPAL)
15.04.2024 JUDGE
neeraj Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes No
Whether Reportable : Yes No
3 of 3
