Ram Chand Gupta, J. - (1.) THE present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 1.2.2011 passed by Additional District Judge, Bhiwani vide which application filed by Ishwar Singh, Respondent -applicant for condonation of delay in filing the appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, was allowed.
(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that the Respondent No. 1 -applicant filed a suit against the present Petitioner for declaration which was dismissed on 27.1.2010 by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhiwani. Respondent No. 1 -Plaintiff filed an appeal against the judgment and decree along with the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The said application was allowed by the learned Ist appellate Court by observing as under: Cost paid. Reply to the application for condonation of delay has already been filed. Arguments heard. It was argued by learned Counsel for the Appellant that there was a delay of 50 days in filing the appeal because the Appellant fell sick and there was a medical certificate in this regard from Dr. Ravi Khattar, B.A.M.S. showing that Ishwar Singh was under his treatment from 27.2.2010 to 8.4.2010. On the other hand, it was argued by learned Counsel for the Respondent that delay had to be explained day by day. It was argued by the counsel for the Respondent that the medical certificate appeared to be bogus and moreover, it did not contain the fact that applicant was rendered unfit to come to the Court. Learned Counsel for Appellant -applicant placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of Lajo Devi v. Smt. Omwati and Ors. reported in, 2003 (1) PLJ (P&H) 597 wherein it was held that liberal approach should be taken by Court while dealing with application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Learned Counsel for the applicant further placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of Smt. Bhago and Ors. v. Kashmiro and Ors. reported in, 2009 (4) RCR (P&H) 647 wherein it was held that there should be liberal construction of the sufficient cause for short delay. Having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the condonation of delay should be allowed subject to payment of Rs. 1,000/ - as cost to the opposite party. It is ordered accordingly. Now to come up on 23.2.2011 for payment of cost and for further proceedings.
(3.) IT has been contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that a false plea has been taken by Respondent No. 1 -Plaintiff that he was under treatment. Further contends that copy was prepared on 6.2.2010, though delivery was taken by the Respondent -Plaintiff on 26.2.2010 and thus, there was delay in filing the appeal.;