Punjab-Haryana High Court
Archana Saini And Anr vs Tarsem Lal And Anr on 7 November, 2024
Author: Vikas Bahl
Bench: Vikas Bahl
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144948
CR-6370-2024 [1]
123
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR-6370-2024
Date of decision: 07.11.2024
Archana Saini and another
...Petitioners
Versus
Tarsem Lal and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr. Dinesh Nagar, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Parminder Singh Kanwar, Advocate for respondent No.1.
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
1. This is a revision petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 10.09.2024 passed by
the First Appellate Court vide which an application bearing No.CM-207-
2023 titled as "Archana Saini & Another Vs. Tarsem Lal and another"
filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in
filing the first appeal has been dismissed.
2. On 04.11.2024, this Court had passed the following order:-
"Present: Mr.Dinesh Nagar, Advocate for the petitioners.
***
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that
for the delay and loss caused to respondent no.1, the
petitioners are ready to compensate respondent no.1 with costs
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144948
CR-6370-2024 [2]
/ damages.
Notice of motion for 07.11.2024.
Liberty is granted to the petitioners to serve respondent
no.1 through dasti process as well as through the counsel
appearing before the Executing Court.
To be shown in the urgent list.
The petitioners have undertaken to bring a demand draft
of Rs.50,000/- in the name of respondent no.1 on the next date
of hearing.
It is made clear that in case the said demand draft is not
brought on the next date of hearing, the present petition would
be liable to be dismissed."
3. In pursuance of the said order, learned counsel for the
petitioners has brought a demand draft amounting to Rs.50,000/- prepared
in the name of respondent No.1 and has handed over the same to learned
counsel for respondent No.1, who has affirmed the said fact and has
submitted that he would hand over the same to respondent No.1.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the
present case, an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 27.10.2022,
along with an application for condonation of delay was filed on 03.07.2023.
It is submitted that the delay in filing the appeal had occasioned on account
of the fact that petitioner No.1, who was pursuing the said case, was confined to
bed as she had undergone a knee surgery in which there were post
operational complications and that her counsel never informed her about the
decision in the said suit, in spite of petitioner No.1 having made all efforts
to contact the said counsel and it was only after the summer vacation, that
on 01.07.2023 the petitioners learnt about the passing of the judgment and
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144948
CR-6370-2024 [3]
decree dated 27.10.2022 and immediately thereafter, they filed the said
appeal. It is submitted that one of the primary reasons mentioned in the
impugned order, while rejecting the application of the petitioners for
condonation of delay, was that there was no medical evidence annexed
along with the application. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred
to the medical record (Annexure P-4) which has been annexed with the
present petition in support of his arguments that petitioner No.1 had
undergone knee surgery. It is further submitted that it is a matter of settled
proposition that endeavour should be made by all the Courts to decide the
case on merits instead of technicalities and has prayed that the impugned
order be set aside and the first appeal of the petitioners be decided on
merits. It is also submitted that the petitioners undertake not to take any
adjournments before the First Appellate Court and would fully assist the
First Appellate Court in expeditious disposal of the said appeal.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 has
submitted that the matter has already been delayed on account of the act and
conduct of the petitioners and thus, in case, the matter is to be remanded to
the First Appellate Court for a decision on merits, the petitioners should
undertake to argue the appeal on the date as directed by the First Appellate
Court and should not take any adjournment before the First Appellate Court
and should not make any further efforts to delay the matter.
6. A perusal of the medical record annexed along with the present
revision petition as Annexure P-4 would show that the plea raised by the
petitioners for explaining the delay in filing the first appeal before the First
Appellate Court, stands substantiated. Moreover, the petitioners have duly
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144948
CR-6370-2024 [4]
compensated respondent No.1 by paying an amount of Rs.50,000/- to
respondent No.1 for the delay caused. Keeping in view the abovesaid facts
and circumstances and also the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in case titled as Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another
Vs. Mst. Katiji and others reported as (1987) 2 Supreme Court Cases 107,
the present revision petition is partly allowed and the impugned order dated
10.09.2024 is set aside and the First Appellate Court is directed to decide
the appeal bearing CA No.210 of 2023 on merits, as expeditiously as
possible. As undertaken by learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
counsel for the petitioners appearing before the First Appellate Court would
not take any adjournment and counsel for all the parties would fully assist
the Court in disposing of the appeal, as expeditiously as possible.
07.11.2024 (VIKAS BAHL)
Pawan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
4 of 4
