JAI GOPAL BANSAL AND OTHERS Vs. GOVIND RAM VERMA AND OTHERS
LAWS(UTN)-2012-4-113
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on April 18,2012

Jai Gopal Bansal And Others Appellant
VERSUS
Govind Ram Verma And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

V.K. Bist, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. Instant petition has been filed challenging the order -dated 03.01.2012 passed by learned District Judge, Haridwar in Misc. Case no. 587 of 2011, whereby petitioners' application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was rejected.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated that respondent no.1 Govind Ram Verma (landlord) moved an application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act no. 13 of 1972 against the petitioners as well as one Mohan Lal Bansal, which was registered bearing P.A. Case No. 1 of 2003 in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Haridwar. It is asserted in the petition that the petitioners were unaware about the pendency of P.A. Case no. 1 of 2003, as no notice was served upon them, moreover, the matter was being pursued by the deceased Mohal Lal Bansal and later on by his legal heirs. It is further asserted in the petition that after the death of Mr. Mohan Lal Bansal, his legal heirs were impleaded as respondent and the petitioners were impleaded as respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4. The release application was allowed on 05.10.2006. Against this order, the respondent nos. 2 & 3 and Smt. Saroj Bala filed an appeal before the District Judge, Haridwar which was registered as Rent Control Appeal no. 137 of 2006 and the petitioners were impleaded as respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4, but they received no notice in the appeal. It is asserted in the petition that the said Rent Control Appeal was listed on 26.09.2011 on which day, the petitioners moved an application for adjournment. On the same date i.e. on 26.09.2011 the respondent no. 2 & 3/appellants got the appeal dismissed as not pressed. About three months thereafter, the petitioners moved an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act alongwith the appeal, however the same was rejected by the learned District Judge, Haridwar vide his impugned order dated 03.01.2011. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners were never served with a notice in the P.A. Case No. 1 of 2003 and due to this reason, they could not come across about the pendency of said P.A. case and first of all they came to know about the said case on 26.09.2011 and on the very day, they moved application for adjournment, which was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Haridwar. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners have no knowledge about the pendency of P.A. case or the Rent Control Appeal, hence the delay condonation application filed by them was bonafide and same should have been allowed.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners referred the order dated 29.09.2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Jr. Div.), Haridwar, in which it is mentioned that the respondents themselves admit that the petitioners are running the shop in question in the disputed premises.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.