JIT SINGH Vs. SARWAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts are given in detail in the judgments of both the Courts below. Therefore, it is not necessary to recount the same. Suffice it to say, that the suit filed by Sarwan Singh, Plaintiff for specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated June 1, 1975, in respect of land measuring 11 kanals, 11 marlas situated within the revenue limits of Village Handiya fully described in the head note of the plaint, for Rs. 18,046. 88, was decreed only for the recovery of Rs. 10,000.00 with costs against defendants 1 and 2, vide judgment and decree, dated January 4,'1978 passed by the trial Court. It was held that though specific performance of contract of sale in question was not possible, yet the plaintiff was entitled to recover Rs. 10,000.00 from defendants 1 and 2. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, the defendants filed an appeal on February" 10, 1978. They also moved an application on November 29, 1978 Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condoning the delay in presentation of the appeal.

(2.) IT was pleaded that the judgment was announced by the trial Court on January 4, 1978 and on the same day, they moved an application for getting copies of the judgment and decree. The copies were prepared on January 10, 1978 and delivered to them on January 25, 1978. They further pleaded that they were illiterate and after obtaining the copies, they consulted their counsel who informed that they would get seven days further period of limitation, Since the appellants were under the impression that they had the limitation to file the appeal till February 10, 1978, they instituted the appeal accordingly, in the Court of Additional District Judge, Barnala, with a prayer that the delay of one day in the presentation of the appeal being of the basis of bona-fide mistake, be condoned.

(3.) BOTH the parties led evidence. Ultimately, the application for condonation of delay Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was rejected and the appeal was dismissed as time-barred by the lower appellate Court, vide its judgment, dated May 3, 1979.