VED BIBRA Vs. GURBACHAN KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the District Judge, Ludhiana, whereby the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay of one year and nine days in filing the appeal was allowed.

(2.) The plaintiff-respondent filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement. The suit was filed by the attorney Joginder Singh. The said suit was dismissed on October 5, 1984. An application for obtaining a certified copy was filed by the lawyer for the plaintiff. It was registered at Serial No. 438 on October 3, 1984. The said copy was never collected by the plaintiff or his attorney and there is a note to that effect dated February 25, 1985. The present appeal alongwith the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay, was filed on October 14, 1985, in which it was stated that the plaintiff Ravinder Singh landed in India on September 11, 1985, when he came to known about the dismissal of the suit for the first time. He filed an application for certified copy of the judgment and decree on September 24, 1985. The said copies were made on October 13, 1985. Thereafter he fell ill and could contact his lawyer on October 12, 1985. The present appeal was filed on October 14, 1985. The said application was contested on behalf of the defendant petitioner. The learned District Judge after framing the issues and allowing the parties to lead evidence, came to the conclusion that from the evidence of the applicant and the attending circumstances of the case, sufficient cause was spelt for condonation of delay. Consequently, the delay of one year and nine days in filing the appeal was condoned.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Joginder Singh, attorney, did not appear in the witness-box, nor there was any evidence of collusion of the said Joginder Singh with the defendant. Thus, argued the learned counsel, the view taken by the District Judge in this behalf was wholly wrong & illegal. A very valuable right had accrued to the defendant and, therefore, the long delay of one year and nine days should not have been condoned as no sufficient ground was made out for the same by the plaintiff. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon Ramlal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., 1962 AIR(SC) 361. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the plaintiffs are non-residents of India and the suit was filed by their attorney Joginder Singh. Since he never informed them of the dismissal of the suit, the question of filing any appeal did not arise. As soon as the plaintiff Ravinder Singh came to India and knew about the dismissal of the suit, he took necessary steps in this behalf. In any case, argued the learned counsel, it was a matter of discretion and since the said discretion has been exercised in favour of the plaintiff-respondent, this Court could not interfere with, in the revision jurisdiction.