Raksha Rani vs Jaswant Singh (Deceased) Through His ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 10847 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Raksha Rani vs Jaswant Singh (Deceased) Through His ... on 4 July, 2024

                                     Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:083161




CR No.5004 of 2023(O&M)

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

Sr. No. 306                 CR No.5004 of 2023 (O&M)
                            Date of Decision: 04.07.2024

Raksha Rani                                            ....... Petitioner
                     Vs.

Jaswant Singh (deceased) through his LRs               ........Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

Present:-      Mr. Rajan Bansal, Legal Aid Counsel
               for the petitioner.

               Mr. Bikram chaudhary, Advocate,
               for the respondent(s)

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

1. Against the judgment and decree dated 17.10.2013 (Annexure

P-1) passed by the trial Court, petitioner-plaintiff Raksha Rani filed an

appeal before the First Appellate Court. The appeal was accompanied by

an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay

of 149 days.

2. It was pleaded that being a poor lady, the appellant-petitioner

could not arrange the finances for paying counsel fee in time. She could

not contact her counsel. After getting necessary information, she contacted

the ADR Centre, Patiala. Then she was provided counsel and approached

the Court by filing appeal with delay of 149 days. The application was

dismissed by the Appellate Court vide impugned order dated 01.10.2015.

The petitioner earlier filed CR-1994-2016 against the aforesaid order, but

the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 24.01.2017 with

1 of 2

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:083161

liberty to file the fresh revision because in the meantime RSA itself was

dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 01.10.2015.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that

application for condonation of delay has been wrongly dismissed and that

appeal being as a matter of right, the petitioner should have been heard on

merits.

4. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner is a poor lady, who

had to approach the ADR Centre so as to seek the legal assistance, the

Court should have been considerate in allowing the application by taking a

practical and reasonable view. The law related to limitation is liberal in

this regard and the party should not be thrown away only because of the

financial constraints.

5. The impugned order dated 01.10.2015 passed by the

Additional District Judge, Patiala, is hereby set aside. The case is

remanded back to the First Appellate Court so as to decide the appeal on

merits in accordance with law.

6. Disposed of accordingly.

04.07.2024                                            ( DEEPAK GUPTA )
monika                                                      JUDGE
                   Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
                   Whether reportable        Yes/No




                                  2 of 2