RAMESH CHAND Vs. AMAR NATH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE of the defendants, i.e., defendant No. 3 Ramesh Chand is in second appeal before this Court. He is aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed on 11.4.2014, by learned Additional District Judge, Hamirpur Camp at Bhoranj, in Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2013, RBT No. 93/2013, whereby the judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 1, Hamirpur, in Civil Suit No. 247 of 2004 has been affirmed.

(2.) AS a matter of fact, the plaintiff has filed a suit for the fixation of boundary by way of demarcation with consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction. Learned trial Court has decreed the suit for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction and ordered to restrain the appellant -defendant No. 3 from raising any further construction or changing the nature of the suit land and interfering therewith in any manner whatsoever. Defendant No. 3 was further directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000/ - as damages to the plaintiff for construction of retaining wall, which was forcibly dug by the defendants. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, appellant -defendant No. 3 has filed the appeal before learned lower appellate Court, which has been dismissed by the judgment and decree under challenge in the present appeal.

(3.) THE respondents when put to notice have contested the application. They have come forward with the version that sufficient cause has not been shown from the perusal of the application, warranting the condonation of inordinate delay as occurred in filing the appeal. The appellant remained negligent throughout and the delay is not bona fide. The application has, therefore, been sought to be dismissed.