KISHAN CHAND Vs. RAM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant-Plaintiff has filed This Regular Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 4.12.2002 passed by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur in civil appeal No. 105/2002. This Regular Second Appeal is barred by 7 years, 1 month and 18 days. The Appellant has filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay in filing this Appeal.

(2.) Respondents have filed reply to the application. According to Respondents, there are no sufficient reasons to condone the delay. It is also averred that the applicant has not explained what happened between 4.12.2002 to April, 2010. Applicant has filed rejoined to the same. The grounds taken in the application have been reiterated with additional ground that he met his counsel earlier at Bilaspur and thereafter came to Shimla in the first week of March, 2010 and was told to prepare documents, which he brought in the last week of April, 2010 to Shimla.

(3.) The Court is of the considered opinion that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act are to be construed liberally. However, while doing so injustice should not be done to opposite party. In this case, the averments contained in the application are vague and sketchy. The version of the applicant is not believable. It cannot be presumed by any stretch of imagination that the applicant was not aware of the judgment and decree, which were passed on 4.12.2002 till 2010. He was represented by an Advocate Sh. P.K. Ahluwalia before the learned District Judge, Bilaspur.