SATYA PARKASH Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been field by the applicant for condoning the delay in filing the Execution Petition. However, there has been delay in filing the Execution Petition due to the reason that some person has a filed Review petition No. 9/98 titled as Chander Singh Bramta v. Satya Parkash Kapret and others and this Tribunal on 13.7.1998 stayed the operation of judgment till 2.9.1998 and the same was not confirmed further. The applicant avers that he was under bona fides impression that the interim order has been confirmed as the factual position was not informed to the applicant by his counsel engaged earlier. The applicant avers that he therefore, could not file the Execution Petition earlier. However, the applicant has now changed the counsel and his present counsel on inspection of file has found that the interim order was only upto 2.8.1998 and the same was not confirmed further. He further avers that but for these good sufficient reasons, the applicant would have come before this Honble Tribunal within the stipulated time. However, it is submitted that the applicant stands to gain noting by delaying the matter. No harm or prejudice will be caused to the respondents if the delay in filing the execution petition is condoned in the interest of justice.

(2.) In the reply filed by the respondents it has been stated that since the matter in dispute is still subjudice before this Tribunal in Review Petition No. 9/98 titled as Chander Singh Bramta v. Stya Parkash Kapret the matter could not be decided at this stage. In case, the orders are being implemented as directed by this Tribunal on 20.3.1998, it would lead to multiplicity of the litigation.

(3.) This Tribunal on 24.12.2002 ordered the applicant to place on record the affidavit of the counsel representing him earlier to support his contention of mistake of the counsel. He has placed the affidavit of his earlier counsel in which the learned Counsel has fairy admitted that he did not deem it proper to advise the applicant to file Execution Petition. In view of the fact that the review petition was still pending. There was no other reason except the pendency of review petition for not filing the execution petition within the period of limitation.