BABA SHIHAN SINGH GILL JHALLI Vs. KULBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed after 195 days beyond limitation prescribed. In the application presented under Section 5 of the Limitation Act supported by an affidavit, the following explanation has been furnished:-

(2.) This is hardly satisfactory and acceptable explanation for the delay and sufficient cause which prevented the appellant/State of Punjab from filing the appeal in time. The criterion in Section 5 of the Limitation Act is to show sufficient cause for the delay for which dates and events have to be articulated in the affidavit on how the file moved in the Government Department and what was the cause of the delay beyond control.

(3.) Though, I would dismiss the application for insufficiently explained delay except caused by the proverbial office rigmarole but in this case refrain from doing so and instead I have heard learned counsel for the State on the merits of the appeal and find that both the Courts below have returned fair and proper analysis of facts in evidence and the findings returned that the plaintiffs had proved by legal evidence that they were owners of the suit property measuring 66 kanals 12 marlas on the basis of jamabandi Ex P.4 for the year 2004-2005 which records that the plaintiff is a co-sharer along with Gurnam Singh. Similarly, entries have been made in jamabandi Ex P.5 for the year 2009-2010 which confirms the status of the plaintiffs' title better than the rest of the world. Even the demarcation report and the application for the same made by the plaintiffs have been proved on record as Ex P.1 and Ex P.2 and no encroachment has been shown over the property claimed to be in possession of the plaintiffs and thus the permanent injunction issued restraining the appellant Government College authorities or the State which owns and runs the institution to encroach upon the suit property of the plaintiffs is justified. The State has failed to establish its ownership over the suit land. In any case the jamabandi and the demarcation report have been and drawn made by the officials of the State of Punjab and if the State distrusts them then it is not the case that adverse action has been taken by the Education Department or the State of Punjab on the conduct of their officialdom in helping out the plaintiffs for extraneous considerations. If the Government has no faith on its officers that would not be the ground to interfere in second appeal when no substantial question of law arises within the meaning of section 100 of the CPC or Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918. Even erroneous findings of fact are not to be interfered with in second appeal unless they gave rise to a substantial question of law and mere inconsequential errors are not enough to ignite the jurisdiction of the High Court.