GURDEEP SINGH Vs. GURNEEK SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in the present revision petitions to the order dated 20.11.2014 (Annexure P4), passed by the Addl.District Judge, Fast Track Court, Ludhiana, whereby the application for condonation of delay has been dismissed on the ground that there was delay of 221 days in filing the appeal and no explanation has been given.

(2.) THE Lower Appellate Court has noticed that even if the medical certificate dated 03.07.2012 is taken into consideration, the petitioner has failed to explain the delay, thereafter, since the appeal along with the application was only filed on 14.12.2012. Accordingly, keeping in view the lack of explanation for condoning the delay and placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra & others : 2013 (9) SCC 92, the application was dismissed.

(3.) AFTER hearing counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the order passed by the Lower Appellate Court is well justified. Admittedly, the suit filed by the plaintiff -petitioner for declaration and permanent injunction was dismissed on 25.02.2012 (Annexure P1). Though the application for certified copy of the said order was applied immediately on 28.02.2012 and same was prepared on 11.04.2012 and supplied on 12.04.2012, the appeal was only filed on 14.12.2012. In the application for condonation of delay, filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the plea taken was that the petitioner had fallen ill and had gone for medical treatment and was having a problem with his back and he had been told not to walk. The delay was sought to be explained till 02.07.2012. Not a word was said in the application, which is dated 14.12.2012, as to why there was delay in filing the appeal, thereafter. Counsel for the petitioner has also placed on record the photocopy of the medical certificate whereby he had been advised complete bed rest from 02.05.2012 to 02.07.2012. The certificate has been issued by an MBBS Doctor and not by an Orthopaedic and the problem which has been experienced by the petitioner is allegedly a low back ache. The certificate also is only for the treatment till 02.07.2012, for which, the petitioner had been advised complete bed rest. Nothing has been mentioned thereafter as to whether the petitioner was not in a position to move around, thereafter.