JASWINDER KAUR Vs. SATPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiffs-appellants have filed instant Regular Second Appeal along with application for condonation of inordinate delay of 968 days in refiling it, after remaining unsuccessful through out before both the courts below, as their suit for separate possession and appeal thereof were dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 23.03.2011 and dated 16.07.2013 respectively.

(2.) The above plea taken by learned counsel for the appellants is taken in routine since last 5/6 decades. Learned counsel for the appellants has not annexed any proof to show as to whether he took some action against his clerk for committing such a gross lapse and misconduct. Even, he does not disclose his name and other relevant particular, nor filed affidavit of his clerk admitting his alleged guilt. It has not further been explained in the application as to on which date the file was taken back by his clerk from the Registry to remove objections. Therefore, the contents of instant application are termed as concocted and completely false in the absence of above supporting evidence. Much water has already flown. It is well-settled proposition of law that each day's delay has to be explained in a mathematical manner.

(3.) Briefly, appellants filed a suit for separate possession by partition of a "gair mumkin abadi" land measuring 3 kanals 3 marlas situated in the area of village Nagra, Tehsil and District Jalandhar, fully detailed in head note of the trial court's judgment. It was pleaded that the entire joint holding was 92 kanals and 10 marlas, out of which, the appellants were owner to the extent of 3 kanals 3 marlas. Many co- sharers had already constructed houses in their respective share. There remains constant unhappiness and dispute between the appellants and other co-sharers/respondents in the enjoyment of their share by the appellants, depriving them of their legal right. Therefore, it was direly needed that their share may be separated from other co-sharers.