Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raman Kapoor vs Sanjay Shinh And Another on 2 July, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:081566
CR-2698-2020(O&M) 1
122 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CR-2698-2020(O&M)
Date of decision : 02.07.2024
Raman Kapoor ...Petitioner
Vs.
Sanjay Shinh and another ...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. C.S. Pasricha, Advocate and
Mr. S.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Vivek K. Thakur, Advocate
for respondent No.1.
***
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. (Oral)
1. In this revision petition, the petitioner assails the correctness of the
First Appellate Court's order refusing to condone the delay of 04 months of 05
days in filing the first appeal.
2. On 28.04.2017, the respondents' (plaintiffs-Sh. Sanjay Shinh) suit
for injunction was dismissed, whereas, the defendants (petitioners) counter-
claim was partly allowed. When they contacted the Lawyer for filing execution
petition, they came to know that the counter-claim has been partly decreed
while refusing to grant relief of mandatory injunction. Hence, they filed an
application for seeking condonation of delay alongwith memorandum of
appeal, which as already noticed has been dismissed.
3. 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:081566
4. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that the First
Appellate Court has erred in overlooking the fact that the petitioners' counter-
claim was partly decreed, whereas, partly dismissed. He submits that there was
bona fide error on the part of the petitioners and the reason for delay in filing
the appeal was bona fide.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel representing the respondent while
referring to the application submits that no reason has been disclosed for
seeking condonation of delay and the petitioners have not pleaded the date of
knowledge.
6. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel representing the parties.
7. Para No.2 of the application filed under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act, 1963 reads as under:-
2. That at the time of pronouncement of the judgment and
decree under appeal it was ordered that the suit of the
plaintiff/respondent was dismissed while the counter claim
was allowed as such after obtaining the certified copy of the
judgment and decree, the appellant never consulted the
lawyer. Now, the appellants approached the counsel to file
the execution of the said judgment and decree and for the
first time the counsel told the appellants that their relief for
mandatory injunction has not been allowed and advised to
file the appeal. The appeal is within time from the date of
knowledge.
8. It is evident that the petitioners have asserted that the appellant
remained under impression that their counter-claim has been allowed. They
remained under that same impression despite receiving certified copy of the
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:081566
judgment and decree. It was only when the petitioners went to the counsel to
file execution they came to know that the relief for mandatory injunction has
been dismissed. Hence, they were advised to file an appeal.
9. In the opinion of the Court, the reasons disclosed for seeking
condonation of delay are sufficient and plausible. Moreover, while considering
such application, the Courts are required to take a holistic view of the entire
matter. It is not proved on record that the petitioners for any mala fide reasons
did not file the appeal. The First Appellate Court is the last Court for re-
appreciation of evidence. In this case, the petitioners' counter-claim was partly
decreed.
10. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the delay of 04 months
and 05 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The appeal filed by the petitioners
is restored to its original number while requesting the First Appellate Court to
decide the same on merits.
11. The petition stands allowed.
12. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the
First Appellate Court on 26.07.2024.
(ANIL KSHETARPAL)
02.07.2024 JUDGE
neeraj
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes No
Whether Reportable : Yes No
3 of 3
