PARJU RAM Vs. BHAG SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant/applicant by medium of this application has sought condonation of 331 days in filing of the appeal. It is claimed that the applicant is an old man of 81 years of age and had a fracture of right hip, for which he was operated. He was not aware of the fact that his appeal pending before the learned District Judge was decided against him on 3.4.2013 as he was not informed of the same by his advocate. It is further alleged that since he was taking treatment for his injuries and is not residing at his native village and it is only in the month of April, 2014 that he came back to the village and contacted his counsel at Hamirpur on 21.4.2014 and he learnt that his appeal had been dismissed on 3.4.2013. It is then claimed that he could not come to Shimla for filing of the appeal as he had suffered minor heart attack and remained bed ridden and thereafter could contact his counsel and drafted the appeal on 14.5.2014, which was filed in this Court on 30.5.2014.

(2.) THE respondent filed reply wherein it was claimed that the grounds taken by the applicant to show sufficient cause were in fact unbelievable, apart from the same being totally false. It has been specifically averred that on 6.12.2013 the respondent had filed execution proceedings against the appellant -applicant in which notice was issued for 14.2.2014 and then the applicant himself had put in appearance through his authorized counsel on 5.4.2014. Thereafter the execution proceedings were listed for filing of objections on 21.5.2014 on which date the applicant did not appear and was proceeded ex -parte. It is further claimed that on 8.3.2014 the applicant entered into a compromise with the respondent at Barsar with respect to the suit land. Copy of the compromise has been annexed as Annexure R -1 to the reply. The respondent has also denied the fact that applicant had suffered a minor heart attack and was bed ridden. It has been specifically stated that on 12.6.2014 the applicant had filed an application to set -aside the ex -parte order dated 21.5.2014 before the learned trial court, wherein there was no mention about the heart attack. Copy of the application has also been annexed with the reply as Annexure R -2.

(3.) THE applicant has not denied the fact of his having entered into a compromise with the respondent on 8.3.2014, but then it is claimed that compromise as effected by the parties did not make any mention of pending litigation between the parties and the compromise was effected simply in order to bring peace amongst the parties.