Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balwinder Kaur vs Balkar Singh And Ors on 31 January, 2024
Author: Meenakshi I. Mehta
Bench: Meenakshi I. Mehta
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:013042
116 2024:PHHC:013042
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA No.262 of 2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 31.01.2024
Balwinder Kaur
...Appellant
Versus
Balkar Singh and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA
Present:- Mr. Pankaj Kalia, Advocate
for the applicant-appellant
*****
MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA, J. (Oral)
CM No.924-C of 2024
By way of the instant application, the applicant-appellant
(here-in-after to be referred as 'the applicant') has sought condonation of
the delay of 3110 days in filing the Appeal bearing RSA No.262 of 2024.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant-applicant on the
present application and have also gone through the file carefully.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the first Civil
Appeal, as filed by the applicant and proforma-respondent No.8 to assail
the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, had been dismissed by
the Lower Appellate Court vide the judgment and decree dated 22.04.2015
but the applicant, who is an old ailing lady, came to know about this fact in
the year 2019 and then, she filed a Miscellaneous Application in the afore-
referred appeal, which was dismissed on 25.02.2021 and thereafter, due to
the outbreak of Pandemic Covid-19, she could not contact her counsel and
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:013042
RSA No.262 of 2024 (O&M) -2- 2024:PHHC:013042
thus, the above-said delay on her part in filing the appeal, is not intentional
and hence, it deserves to be condoned.
4. However, as regards the plea of the applicant qua her having
come to know about the judgment and decree dated 22.04.2015 in the year
2019, the same is not plausible at all because in normal course of events, no
prudent litigant can be expected to remain oblivious of the proceedings and
the outcome of the lis initiated by/against him/her, for a period as long as
almost 04 (four) years.
5. Then, the afore-referred Application, filed by the applicant in
the above-said first appeal, had been dismissed on 25.02.2021 but she has
moved the instant application, along-with the main appeal, on 18.01.2024,
i.e after about (03) years. It being so, her plea regarding her inability to
contact her counsel due to the outbreak of Pandemic Covid-19, does not
come to her aid to justify the afore-mentioned delay. To add to it, she has
not placed any material on the file to establish that throughout during the
interregnum from 25.02.2021 till the filing of this application and the appeal,
she had remained confined to the bed due to illness. In these circumstances,
it becomes explicit that the above-referred delay does not stand justifiably
explained and rather, it can safely be construed to be an inordinate one.
6. In view of the fore-going discussion, the present application,
being bereft of any merit, stands dismissed.
RSA No.262 of 2024 and
CMs No.925-C and 926-C of 2024
Consequent upon the dismissal of the afore-said application as
moved by the applicant-appellant for seeking condonation of the delay in filing
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:013042
RSA No.262 of 2024 (O&M) -3- 2024:PHHC:013042
the instant appeal, it follows that this appeal also deserves dismissal on account
of its having become hopelessly time-barred. Resultantly, the appeal in hand
as well as the above-indicated Miscellaneous Applications stand dismissed
accordingly.
31.01.2024 (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA)
pooja JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether Reportable: No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:013042
3 of 3
