LAWS(P&H)-2015-1-464

RAJESH @ KRISHAN Vs. RAM NIWAS

Decided On January 20, 2015
Rajesh @ Krishan Appellant
V/S
RAM NIWAS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is against the order of the lower Appellate Court by which the application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay of 60 days in filing the appeal has been dismissed. The petitioner filed the suit for joint possession alleging that he is a co -sharer in agricultural land; he was a minor on 07.06.2005 as he was born on 02.08.1988 and could not have executed the sale deed being a minor. On the pleading of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court on 04.06.2009: -

(2.) THE only material point involved in the case of the plaintiff was that being a minor, he was not lawfully entitled to enter into a contract much -less to execute the sale deed. Thus, the entire focus of the Court was to hold as to whether the plaintiff was a minor or not at the time of execution of the sale deed? The trial Court has observed that the plaintiff himself has alleged that he is known as Rajesh @ Krishan, whereas Krishan was born on 17.06.1986 and the sale deed was executed on 07.06.2005, therefore, he was not the minor, whereas the case of the plaintiff was that he was born on 02.08.1988.

(3.) AGGRIEVED against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff filed the first appeal along with an application for condonation of delay of 60 days. The lower Appellate Court, at the first instance, while deciding the application for condonation of delay, framed 3 issues on 04.12.2012, allowed the parties to lead their evidence and dismissed the application holding that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he was under depression because of a criminal case filed against him by his wife under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (here -in -after referred to as the "Cr.P.C.") and that he was given a wrong advice by some advocate that the limitation to file the appeal is 90 days instead of 30 days. At the same time, the lower Appellate Court also observed on the merits of the case holding that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he was a minor at the time of execution of the sale deed.