MAJOR SINGH Vs. BALWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-petitioner had brought a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant-respondents restraining them from disposing of or interfering in any manner with the house/Haveli of the petitioner claiming the suit property to be his ancestral property. The said suit was contested by the respondents and the ownership of the petitioner as well as the possession was denied. It was claimed that the said house/haveli was under the ownership of Gram Panchayat. The said suit was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge, Sr. Divn., Tarn Taran by way of judgment and decree dated 4.9.2003. The petitioner filed an appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree of the trial Court along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 31 days in filing the appeal. In the application for condonation of delay, the stand of the petitioner was that he had applied for a certified copy of the judgment and decree on the date of decision itself, but the same was made available to him on 15.9.2003. It was the further case of the petitioner that the copy of the judgment and decree was handed over to his previous Counsel for engaging a Counsel at Amritsar for filing the appeal.

(2.) It was the further case of the petitioner that on 17.9.2003 he had to go to Rampur in Uttar Pradesh on account of a sudden call and he had no time to issue necessary instructions to his Counsel. It was also the case of the petitioner that on 31.10.2003 he came to know that the appeal had not been filed by his earlier Counsel and accordingly he approached the Appellate Court through his Counsel on 5.11.2003. Thus, there was delay of 31 days in filing the appeal and he sought condonation of delay on the reasons mentioned above.

(3.) This said application was contested by the respondents and the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar, by way of order dated 19.10.2004 was pleased to dismiss the application on the plea that there was no evidence brought by the petitioner to show that he had visited Uttar Pradesh as stated above. It was observed by the learned Additional District Judge that the petitioner had not examined his counsel to whom he alleged to have handed over the copy of the judgment and decree. It was also observed by the learned Additional District Judge that as per the plea of the petitioner he had come back from Uttar Pradesh on 31.10.2003, but the appeal was filed on 5.11.2003 and there was no explanation for delay in this regard also.