VED PARKASH Vs. SHANTI SWAROOP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants-plaintiffs has filed This Regular Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 5.1.2004 passed by the learned District Judge, Una in civil appeal No. 48/2002. This Regular Second Appeal is barred by 5 years, 9 months and 22 days. THE appellant has filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay in filing this Appeal. Case of the appellant-applicant, in a nutshell, is that the judgment and decree was passed by the first appellate court on 5.1.2004 and the copy of the same was supplied by the Copying Agency on 7.2.2004. He sought legal advice from the counsel, who was conducting the case and he informed that since another civil suit was pending, there was no need to assail the judgment dated 5.1.2004. It is in these circumstances, according to the applicant, the Regular Second Appeal, could not be filed within the prescribed period.

(2.) RESPONDENTS/non-applicants have filed detailed reply to the application. The version of the applicant is not believable. The Civil Suit No. 149/1996 has been decided by the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Una on 31.5.2007. Thereafter, the present appeal has been filed only on 5.2.2010. The applicant has not given any sufficient and cogent reasons for condonation of delay in filing the Regular Second Appeal beyond the period of limitation. The grounds taken by the applicant are vague and sketchy. These grounds do not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Valuable right has accrued in favour of the respondents and the same cannot be taken away at this belated stage.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in the application and the same is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. In view of the dismissal of the CMP (M) No. 99/2010, this Regular Second Appeal is also dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.