Sher Singh v. Davinder Singh

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 10.08.2023 Sher Singh ..... Petitioner

Versus

Davinder Singh ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

Present:

Mr. J.S. Bhatia, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Prashant Bansal, Advocate for the respondent.

**** ANIL KSHETARPAL , J. (ORAL) 1.

The first Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal while refusing to condone the delay of 313 days in filing the appeal. The petitioner filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the ex parte decree. The said application was dismissed. It is the case of the petitioner that on account of wrong legal advice, he filed a revision petition in the High Court which was returned by the High Court's Registry while objecting to its maintainability. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the first appeal along with an application for condonation

-2of delay.

2.

The first Appellate Court has refused to condone the delay on the ground that the revision petition was filed in the High Court after a period of ten months from the date of order.

3.

On the one hand, learned counsel representing the petitioner contends that the petitioner being legally illiterate about the procedural law filed the revision petition bona fidely believing that such revision petition is maintainable. He submits that the first Appellate Court has taken a very narrow view of the matter.

4.

On the other hand, learned counsel representing the respondent contends that there is a huge delay of 313 days and the petitioner has failed to disclose sufficient reasons regarding the condonation of delay. 5.

This Court has considered the submissions of learned counsel representing the parties. Undoubtedly, the revision petition was filed after a period of ten months from the date of order, however, it is clear that the petitioner has failed to get proper advice on the matter in the District Court. Moreover, the Courts are required to make the efforts to dispose of the cases on merits. In view of the Court, the explanation furnished by the petitioner is sufficient as he filed a revision petition, though, an appeal was maintainable.

6.

Moreover, pursuant to a decree passed for grant of possession by way of specific performance of an agreement to sell, the plaintiff has already been delivered possession, hence, the impugned order dated 29.05.2018 is set aside while restoring the first appeal at its original

-3number. The parties through their learned counsel are directed to appear before the first Appellate Court on 06.09.2023. (ANIL KSHETARPAL) JUDGE 10.08.2023 Satyawan

1. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

2. Whether reportable:

Yes/No