KAMAL DEV Vs. RAM PRAKASH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C M P (M) No. 806/2015

(2.) The application was contested. It is averred in the reply that the present applicant was proceeded ex parte as he has failed to appear despite service on 21.8.2006 in the trial court. Kamal Dev was also served before the first appellate court, however, no appearance was put in and he was proceeded ex parte. It is evident that the applicant has neither contested the civil suit nor appeal. The Court has gone through order dated 21.9.2013 whereby the suit filed by Sh. Ram Prakash was dismissed as withdrawn and the appeal was compromised as per compromise deed Ex.CA. Compromise deed Ex.CA and Tatima Ex.CB were ordered to be form part of decree. The Regular Second Appeal is barred by one year, six months and five days. It is not believable that the applicant did not know about the judgment and decree dated 1.6.2012 of the trial court and compromise decree dated 21.9.2013 rendered by the Additional District Judge (I), Mandi in Civil Appeal No. 65 of 2012. The applicant has slept over his rights for considerable long time and it cannot be believed that he came to know about the passing of decree at the time of suit land being sold by respondent No.2-Himmat Ram. The applicant has remained negligent in pursuing the case. A valuable right has accrued to the opposite party.

(3.) It is true that the Court ought to be very liberal while considering the applications under section 5 of the Limitation Act, but at the same time the valuable rights accruing to the opposite party cannot be ignored. The applicant has not assigned sufficient reasons for the condonation of delay.