CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR Vs. SATPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANTS No. 2 to 4 i.e. Chief Administrator, Administrator and Estate Officer of Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) have filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) SUIT was filed by respondent/plaintiff Satpal against State of Haryana defendant No. 1 and against the petitioners as defendants No. 2 to 4. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panchkula vide judgment and decree dated 20.11.2006, Annexure P/1, decreed the suit. Defendants No. 2 to 4 filed first appeal on 26.5.2009 against judgment and decree of the trial court. Along with first appeal, defendants No. 2 to 4 made application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning delay of 873 days in filing the said appeal. Learned Additional District Judge, Panchkula vide judgment and decree dated 28.10.2009, Annexure P/2, dismissed the application for condonation of delay in filing the first appeal and consequently dismissed the first appeal as well. Feeling aggrieved, defendants No. 2 to 4 filed RSA No. 2186 of 2010 in this Court. However, vide order dated 30.6.2010, Annexure P/3 passed by this Court, appellants were permitted to withdraw the said RSA with liberty to file appropriate revision petition against impugned order of the lower appellate court. Thereafter, the instant revision petition has been filed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that since HUDA is a statutory authority, lot of paper work is involved to arrive at decision of filing or not filing of appeal and therefore, there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 873 days in filing the first appeal.