RAJ KUMAR @ SANCHURI Vs. SATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 07.08.2013 (Annexure P/4) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Patiala, whereby application filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 180 days in filing the first appeal along with first appeal has been dismissed.

(2.) The parties hereinafter will be referred to as per the status before the trial Court i.e. petitioner as defendant and respondents as plaintiffs.

(3.) Brief facts relevant for disposal of this revision petition are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 02.06.2006, wherein the defendant appeared and filed his written statement. Issues were framed. Parties were afforded opportunity to lead their evidence. Thereafter, the trial Court passed a judgment and decree dated 24.10.2011 (Annexure P/1). Against that judgment and decree (Annexure P/1), defendant preferred an appeal along with an application for condonation of delay of 180 days in filing the first appeal on the ground that the he had been approaching his counsel regularly to know about status of his case. However, counsel of the defendant did not disclose the exact proceedings of the case to the defendant and in good faith, defendant had impression that his counsel is watching his interest properly. Ultimately, on 23.04.2012, when the defendant approached his counsel and stressed upon him to disclose the real position of the case, then the counsel informed him that the suit has been decreed on 24.10.2011 and on the very next day, the defendant applied for certified copy of the judgment and decree which was issued on 02.05.2012, as a result of which 180 days delay in filing the appeal occurred. The defendant pleaded that delay is neither intentional nor willful. Notice was issued to the respondents-plaintiffs in application. On notice, respondents-plaintiffs appeared and filed reply. The averments made in the application for condonation of delay were denied by the plaintiffs. From the pleading of the parties, the learned lower appellate Court framed the following issues:-