Punjab-Haryana High Court
Taranjeet Singh & Anr vs Sunil Kumar & Aner on 3 July, 2024
261
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CR-5890-2018
2018
Date of Decision: July 03, 2024
TARANJEET SINGH & ANR ........Petitioners
Versus
SUNIL KUMAR & ANOTHER
AN ........Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Present:Mr. B.S. Bhalla, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Kuljit Singh, Advocate for
Mr. C.M. Munjal, Advocate for respondents
respondents.
****
HARKESH MANUJA,
MANUJA J. (ORAL)
By way of present petition, challenge has been laid to the
decision dated 21.07.2017
21.07.2017 passed by Addl. District Judge, Yamuna
Nagar
gar at Jagadhari whereby, an application filed under Section 5 of
Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 73 days in filing Civil
Appeal No.92 of 2017 titled as "Taranjeet Singh Anr. Vs. Sunil Kumar
and Anr." came to be dismissed.
2. Briefly stating,
stating, the petitioner
petitioners-plaintiffs filed a suit for
recovery of Rs.10,90,000/-
Rs.10,90,000/ along with pendent
pendente lite and future interest
against respondents-defendants
respondents based on a pronote dated 19.01.2006.
The said suit came to be dismissed with costs by the Court of learned
d
Addl. Civil Judge, (Senior Division),, Jagadhari vide judgment and
decree dated 30.08.2013.
3. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner
petitioners-plaintiffs filed an appeal
along with an application for seeking condonation of delay of 73 days in
filing thereof. The prayer made for condonation of delay was opposed at
the instance of respondents-defendants having filed a reply thereof.
The First Appellate Court vide order dated 21.07.2017 declined the
prayer made by the petitioners-plaintiffs seeking condonation of delay of
73 days in filing the First Appeal, hence the present revision petition.
4. Impugning the aforementioned order dated 21.07.2017,
learned counsel for the petitioners submits that while declining the
prayer made on behalf of the petitioners, the Court below failed to
appreciate the grounds stated in the application filed under Section 5 of
Limitation Act, wherein, a complete and comprehensive detail was
rendered with regard to reasons for delay in filing the appeal and thus,
the prayer in this regard was required to be accepted by the First
Appellate Court.
5. On the other hand, the prayer made herein has been
vehemently opposed at the instance of learned counsel representing
respondents-defendants while submitting that there has been
substantial delay in filing the appeal thereby, creating rights in favour of
respondents-defendants and thus, the impugned order warrants no
interference.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone
through the paper-book. I find substance in the submissions made by
learned counsel for the petitioners.
7. A perusal of the application shows that the delay in filing the
First Appeal at the instance of petitioners-plaintiffs occurred on account
of change of his residence from Village Fatehgarh, District Yamuna
Nagar to Ludhiana for the purpose of his business and for the said
reason there being some communication gap between him and his
Advocate at Yamuna Nagar, resulted into delay in filing of the appeal. A
perusal of the application shows that the reasons stated therein, make
out sufficient cause for condoning the delay and thus, rather than
adopting a hyper-technical approach, the First Appellate Court should
have condoned the delay in filing of appeal thereby, enabling the parties
to get their rights adjudicated upon on merits rather than technicalities
so as to further the cause of justice.
8. In the aforementioned facts and circumstances the
impugned order dated 21.07.2017 passed by First Appellate Court is
hereby set aside the delay of 73 days in filing the civil appeal bearing
No. 92 of 2017 titled as "Taranjeet Singh Anr. Vs. Sunil Kumar and
Anr." filed at the instance of petitioners-plaintiffs is hereby condoned
and the appeal is ordered to be restored to its original number with a
request to the First Appellate Court to adjudicate upon the same on
merits. The parties through counsels are requested to appear before
the First Appellate Court on 17.07.2024.
9. The aforesaid order shall however be subject to payment of
costs of Rs.25,000/- to the respondent No.1-defendant.
03.07.2024 (HARKESH MANUJA)
Tejwinder JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
