PYARE LAL Vs. KAMLA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay in filing the present regular second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 18.2.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Tract Court), Solan, camp at Nalagarh. The judgment and decree was passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Solan, on 18.2.2008. Certified copy of the same was applied for on 8.1.2010. The same was prepared and delivered to the Appellant on 11.1.2010. The present appeal has been filed on 26.2.2010. There is a delay of 1 year, 8 months and 5 days in filing the regular second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 8.2.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Tract Court), Solan, camp at Nalagarh.

(2.) Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, learned Counsel for the Appellant has strenuously argued that the Appellant is an agriculturist and was not apprised by his counsel that his first appeal stood decided on 18.2.2008. He came to know about the decision only in the first week of January, 2010 and thereafter he applied for the certified copy. He came to Shimla in the 3rd week of January, 2010 and he was apprised that the appeal shall be filed only after the vacation. The regular second appeal was prepared and filed on 26.2.2010. Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, learned Counsel for the Appellant has also argued that his client was diligent in pursuing his case. He also argued that his client is hard of hearing. Appellant/applicant has also led evidence by way of affidavit sworn on 12th December, 2010. He finally contended that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act are to be construed liberally.

(3.) Mr. Malay Kaushal, Advocate appearing vice learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 has vehemently argued that there is no sufficient cause made out by the Appellant to condone the delay. He has referred to the affidavit filed by his client on 10th December, 2010. According to him, the Appellant belongs to Baddi Industrial Area and was aware of the judgment and decree dated 18.2.2008 passed by the first appellate Court.