Yash Pal Joura v. Naveen Mahajan
!
"
#$$
%
&' %$ ( ) *% +'
,,,
,,, ) *% +'
- .'/ 1.
The present revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails the order dated 15.05.2023, passed by the Addl. District Judge, Pathankot vide which the application, filed by the respondent for condonation of delay of 12 days in filing the appeal was allowed. 2.
The facts, as emanating from the paper book, are that a suit for possession by way of specific performance was filed by the petitionerplaintiff against the respondent-defendant. The same was decreed on 27.10.2022. An appeal was preferred by the respondent-defendant against the said judgment and decree dated 27.10.2022. The said appeal was accompanied by an application for condonation of delay of 12 days in filing the appeal (Annexure A-1). The application was opposed by way of a reply (Annexure A-2). Vide impugned order dated 15.05.2023, the application was allowed and the delay of 12 days in filing the appeal was condoned leading to the filing of the present revision petition.
3.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the paper book.
4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the First Appellate Court erred in allowing the application for condonation of delay. Learned counsel first read the application (Annexure P-1) and submitted that the averments made therein do not disclose any sufficient cause for delay of 12 days which occurred in filing the appeal. It has been contended that false allegations were levelled by the respondentdefendant against the petitioner-plaintiff which have caused undue harassment to the petitioner-plaintiff. It has been contended that a detailed reply (Annexure A/P-2) was filed to the application (Annexure A/P-1) in which it was denied that any talks of a compromise were going on. However, the First Appellate Court did not consider anything and passed the impugned order in a cursory manner. Learned counsel minced no words in vehemently contending that the impugned order dated 15.05.2023 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Pathankot is illegal and that the same deserves to be set aside.
5.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner but find the same to be devoid of merit. !
"
# $
% &
'
(()**+$
,
-,
,
$ ),-
$$ *
,
$ %$ - ) $ - ,
, .
)
!" #"$%& / 0, 1*
$
% - )$ $,- / 0, 1*
.
, -,
&+
, ,
% .
. $ %$
-
% ,
,%
&+
3 3 ,
-
% , %
, -
,
,% .
&+"
, , %
, %
&+
, ,
-, %
% , 4
&+ 4 , , -
4% -%
&+) , 4
, ,
,
, %
&+ ,
, , $ -
-
&+
, $
- -
$-
$
- , $
$
,
&1+ ,
-
%
, 4
)
$ % ,
, , % % ,- ,
&1+) 1
%
%
, % 1
- %
&1+) , , % $-$
,- 4%
$
&1+
%
,
-
, , %
$ ,
%
&1+ " , , - -
% , % ,
!&+
"
!123 "4 "
5 2!7!
(8 9 '"4 :7 ! "
.0/ ( ; / 0, "
*
)$ %$ % /%*
7 4 $
,- ,
%
) / 0, 1*
1 $$
"
#
)$ 1
8 6 , % ,
, , - %
4 , , -
)$ $
,
$ , 4 $ ,
)
$ - #9 - % /%*
7 4 %
/ 0, 1 *
1% $ ,
7 4/%*
)$ ,- / 0, 1*
.
:
"
$
, , ,
% $ 3 3 3 3 3 %3 - ,
- $
$ 3 3
,
$
$ $
1%
- 1
$
,
) 1 3 3 -
$$ , $
, % - 3
<
% -3 3
/ $
%
, *
$
*
,
- - *
$
,--3 3
%
- 1
*
$ -
1 $
4 ,
$
-
&"
;
%* ; ;
<'
)=:!>"
*
=??!@
- )=:AB"
*
=:#?@
C; DB==&D+* &*+=##DB==&=+
1 % &
+!== , E " * ;
, )DB=D"
*
=!D:
=B )
"% 7
)=:!>"
*
::?*
1
, $
3% 3 3 3 ,
- 3 3%
/ $
-
1 -,
% $
%
3
== 1
3 3 , % ,
,
, - %
4 , , -
$
,
,
4 ,
&
"- DBBD&D+*&*+?!=@" C " <'
F , " <'
DBBD&D+* &*+??A
=
=D ) % $ - - -, , $ %
$
, *
$
1
, %
$% -
*
$
%
$
%
3 - -
-, *
,
%%
%13
1 13$ 3 $ , $3 ) -,
3 3 ,
$
%
=?
" , - , %
-
- 5 4 %
)
4 ,
- $ ,
%
1,- ,
% /,
-G $ H% D> =I= 3??B -
1
%
%
1 - &=+ %
-
&D+
% &?+
$%
$
, %
$
-
-
,
$- ,
5
- ,- % - $- ,
,- -G $ G
;
&"
7
- " ;4 )"
DBB#&>+*&*+??>&DBB#+A"**#=B
"%<'
""%<'
)=:A?"
*
D#?A 4 H1
H%
% &DBBI+=A"**>>I => ) " 7 4 DBBD&D+* &* + ##? *
- % % %%$ - $ $,- * ;
- "
-4 =::D&D+*&* +!?>
!&+ $
,
$
,
, -
1
$$ 3 3$ %
$
$ ) - , $ ,
% -
, %
-
, % -,- %- $
, -$
$,-
% - )
$
%
% -$ - %- $
%
- $%
% %
#
Reverting to the facts of the present case, the suit was decided on 27.10.2022. The appeal was filed with a delay of 12 days. In the application for condonation of delay, it was averred that some talks of a compromise were going on but with a malafide intention, the petitionerplaintiff withdrew from the talks after the period of limitation had expired. These averments were denied in the reply and detailed submissions were made. The First Appellate Court, instead of going into the allegations and counter allegations, came to the conclusion that since valuable rights of the parties were involved, the matter should be decided on merits and, therefore, condoned the delay in filing the appeal. If one goes through the crux of the findings of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments referred to in the previous paragraph coupled with the facts of the present case, it emerges that the delay of 12 days was not one on which the respondent-defendant should have been non-suited.
8.
In the considered opinion of this Court, sufficient cause was shown in the application. There was no point in framing issues on the allegations and counter allegations and then asking the parties to lead evidence. The First Appellate Court was satisfied that the delay deserved to be condoned which it rightfully did. It is settled law that the matters should be decided on merits and parties should not normally be non-suited on technicalities unless and until the delay is exponential and no valid reasons have been given for the same.
9.
Before parting with the order, it needs to be observed that the
present petition is infact mis-directed and in a way has led to the wastage of the time of the Court. Further, the language used in the revision petition by repeatedly referring to the Appellate Court as "his" and stating that the application had been decided on irrelevant grounds and that the observations made were perverse, are just on the line between being simple averments and being contemptuous. It has also been averred that the Addl. District Judge, Pathankot deliberately ignored to consider the sufficient ground shown by the respondent and the blasting reply of the petitioner which was an illegal approach. Even the manner in which arguments were addressed leaves a lot to be desired.
However, keeping in view the fact that learned counsel is a fresh entrant to the profession after superannuating from the Indian Revenue Service (as stated by learned counsel himself during the course of arguments on a query put by this Court), this Court does not intend to proceed any further. However, this Court would advise learned counsel to exercise restraint while drafting his petitions and addressing arguments in the Court.
In so far as the revision petition is concerned, for the reasons mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, I do not find any merit in the same and the revision petition is hereby dismissed.
.) *% +'/
#$$
J
4%K
K J
, K