BRIJENDRA AND OTHERS Vs. KRISHNA PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Original Suit No. 1601/2007, Krishna Pal v. Brijendra & others, was filed for the relief of permanent injunction. This suit was dismissed by the judgment dated 20.07.2011 of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.-5, Ghaziabad. Against this judgment of trial court, Civil Appeal no. 120/2011, Krishan Pal and others v. Brijendra & others, was preferred, which was allowed by the judgment dated 07.11.2012 of Additional District Judge, Ex-Cadre, Court No.-3, Ghazaibad, by which the judgment of trial court was set aside and original suit was decreed. Against the judgment of first appellate court in Civil Appeal no. 120/2011, memo of second appeal was filed before this Court 247 day after the lapse of period of limitation in filing appeal. With memo of appeal, the application for condonation of delay was filed by defendants-appellants supported by affidavit of appellant no.-1.

(2.) In support of application for condonation of delay, counsel for the appellants contended that appellants had no knowledge of the judgment of first appeal; therefore, they could not prefer second appeal in time. As soon as they get information of the impugned judgment of the first appellate court, they contacted their counsel and filed present appeal. Therefore, delay in filing memo of second appeal should be condoned in interest of justice.

(3.) Although, appellants have given reasons for delay in filing the second appeal but, in fact, there appears no satisfactory or sufficient ground for the same. It is written in their affidavit that the appellants have no technical knowledge regarding the delay. This contention is not acceptable. They have been contesting the original suit as well as first appeal on merits in accordance with law which shows their such knowledge. In any case, ignorance of law is no excuse, especially when they have knowledge that against such judgment, appeal has to be preferred in time. The only point raised by them for delay condonation is that they had no knowledge of judgment of first appellate court dated 07.11.2012 till June, 2013. They have not given reason that when arguments were advanced and case was reserved for judgment, then why and how they had not taken interest in knowing the result of the contested case. The judgment in civil appeal no. 120/2011 was reserved by fixing a date by the first appellate court within the knowledge of the parties, and said judgment was pronounced on its date of said 7.11.2012. It is stated in their affidavit that appellant no.-1 had come to know about said judgment in June, 2013 when he over heard some villagers talking about said judgment. The correct date and place of knowledge was not informed by appellants' side and name of person was also not disclosed from whom such knowledge was received. These facts miakes the averments of appellants unbelievable regarding said delay.