KRISHAN LAL Vs. HARJI RAM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has sought to set aside the order dated 8.11.2012 (Annexure P/5), passed by the first appellate court. The petitioner-plaintiff had filed a suit before the trial court on 18.7.1998, which was dismissed on 25.4.2006, against which the appeal was preferred. The petitioner had also moved an application for condoning the delay of three years, six months and ten days in filing the appeal, on the ground that he was an employee and posted at Chandigarh, therefore, he could not go to Fatehabad in order to enquire about the decision of the case. It was further pleaded that his brothers Kishori Lal and Siri Chand were conducting the proceedings of the case and had taken the responsibility and to make expenses of litigation. They joined hands with the respondents and did not inform him about the decision of the case, about which he came to know only on 12.10.2009 when he contacted his counsel Mr. C.L. Narang, Advocate, Fatehabad.

(2.) The first appellate court dismissed the application on 8.11.2012.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length, I do not find any merits in the contentions that the delay was not intentional and Kishori Lal and Siri Chand were bound to inform him about the decision of the case. There were two other plaintiffs besides him. He does not dispute that his two brothers (plaintiffs); Kishori Lal and Siri Chand knew well about the decision of the case as there was no clash of interest amongst them, therefore, it does not sound to the reason that they did not inform him for such a long time. Any way, the petitioner being party interested, he should have taken special interest to know about the fate of the case and could contact his counsel for the purpose. No sane man would remain silent for such a long time and finally enquire after more than three years. Condoning of such delay would amount to high jacking the statutory provisions of the Act as a whole. As regards the judgment referred by the learned counsel, delivered in case State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ahmed Jaan, 2008 4 RCR(Civ) 126, the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case, as in that case, the delay was condoned because there was negligence on the part of the counsel who had mislead the party and the explanation was plausible. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in case Improvement Trust, Ludhiana v. Ujagar Singh and others, 2010 3 CivCC 374, wherein it was observed as under:-