LAWS(HPH)-2014-10-52

ASHA Vs. SURESH KUMAR

Decided On October 16, 2014
ASHA Appellant
V/S
SURESH KUMAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicants have sought condonation of 121 days delay in filing of revision petition on the ground that they had preferred a revision petition on 28.5.2014 against the judgment of the appellate court dated 22.10.2013. Earlier the case was being pursued by Sh. Naresh Kumar, who died on 30.11.2012 and after his death the matter was being pursued by Sh. Rajinder Kumar, who met with a road accident at Solan in January 2014 and was hospitalized in Zonal Hospital, Solan and later at his home. He inquired from his counsel Sh. Rajiv Garg about the hearing of the appeal and was informed that the same had been dismissed. He accordingly, applied for copy of the judgment through another counsel on 25.2.2014, which was taken by Sh. Sudhir Thakur, Advocate on 4.3.2014. However, the copy of the judgment was not received by the petitioners. It is then alleged that the house and business premises were earlier with Naresh Kumar and now petitioners No. 1 to 5 are occupying the same and petitioners No. 6 to 8 who are real brothers of Naresh Kumar could not pursue the matter as the petitioners Asha Devi and Ajay Kumar subsequently got copy of judgment from Sh. Sudhir Thakur, Advocate, but because of ill health of Asha Devi the revision against the order of Rent Controller, Solan dated 23.6.2012 affirmed in appeal on 22.10.2013 could not be preferred earlier.

(2.) IT is also averred that petitioners No. 1 to 5 are residing in the premises in dispute and also carrying on business. It is also averred that Asha Devi has not been keeping well and for the said reason the copy of the judgment which had been given to her could not be brought to the notice of other petitioners, thereby preventing the filing of revision petition within the prescribed period of limitation. As soon as the factum of the case having been decided against the petitioners came to the notice of Ajay Kumar, he collected the copy of judgment under revision and after taking legal advice preferred the present revision petition.

(3.) IN rejoinder to reply, the petitioners claimed that after the death of Naresh Kumar, Sh. Rajinder Kumar had been pursuing the matter, but he met with a road accident in Solan in January 2014. It was also submitted that Asha Devi and Ajay Kumar got copy of the judgment, but because of ill health of Asha Devi, the matter could not be pursued, while on the other hand, Sh. Ajay Kumar was busy with the treatment of his mother Asha Devi and therefore, he too could not file the appeal.