- (1.) Although, the main appeal was dismissed, yet this case has been listed before this Court by the Registry in view of the order dated 25.11.2010 by which the Chief Secretary, Punjab was directed to order an enquiry against the concened official and to submit his enquiry report as well as action taken there on, if any,on the issue as to "whether the Land Acquisition Officer-cumACA- PUDA, Jalandhar, through whom the present appeal is filed has concealed this fact from this Court that certified copy of the impugned judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court was applied even after the expiry of period of limitation to file the present appeal and Is he not guilty of "suppresso veri and suggesto falsi" or is he insensitive to the Court proceedings and casual in the discharge of his official functions or he has connived with the plaintiff in not obtaining the certified copy in time to file the appeal within the period of limitation to help her in this suit for recovery?.
(2.) The necessity to pass the aforesaid order arose because the main appeal was filed alongwith an application bearing CM-13205-C of 2010, under Section 5 of the Limitaton Act, 1963, for condonation of delay of 115 days in which the main ground was taken that "inadvertently the judgments of both the Courts below have been put in another brief in the office of PUDA, Jalandhar. In the month of October,2010, the same was taken out by the office clerk of PUDA, Jalandhar. In this process, a delay of 115 days has occurred in filing the appeal".
(3.) The Court had found that averments made in the affidavits of Harbir Singh, PCS, Land Acquisition Officere-Cum-ACA, PUDA, Jalandhar, were contrary to the facts on record because Civil Appeal No. 37 of 16.5.2009 filed by PUDA against the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 21.3.2009, was dismissed on 23.4.2010 against which the Regular Second Appeal could have been filed before this Court within the period of 90 days which had expired on 22.7.2010 but the certified copy of the judgment and decree of the Court below itself was applied on 02.8.2010 and obtained on 09.8.2010 but the RSA before this Court was filed on 22.11.2010, which means the averment that judgments of both the Courts below as alleged in para 3 of the affidavit filed along-with CM-13205-C of 2010 were put in another brief in the office of PUDA, Jalandhar and could be filed only in the month of October, 2010, was patently false.;