BALAK RAM Vs. CHET RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is applicants/appellant's (hereinafter referred to as the "applicants") application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 18.2.1999 passed by the Additional District Judge, Mandi in Civil Appeal No. 68/92 whereby delay of 68 days in filing the appeal has been sought to be explained on the grounds, that the applicants are illiterate rustic villagers not knowing the intricacies of the law and are unaware of the limitation, that on the basis of the letter received by them from their counsel intimating that the criminal case in the High Court has been decided in their favour, they thought that even the civil appeal stood disposed of by such order and that they had engaged Shri Bhagat Ram Sharma as counsel to represent them in the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi, but said Shri Bhagat Ram Sharma expired in air crash and the applicants thereafter were not in contact with him and as such there was communication gap and the appeal could not be filed in time.

(2.) The application has been resisted by the respondents on the grounds that the applicants have mis-stated the facts in their application, that the averments in the applicaton that the applicants are illiterate rustic villagers are factually incorrect in as-much-as Balak Ram applicant is in employment under the Govern- ment of Himachal Pradesh and Daulat Ram applicant No. 3 is also an employee. Aplicant No. 4 is stated to be the President of the Gram Panchayat, and that the applicants cannot be permitted to take the plea that the letter received by them about the decision of criminal case in their favour in the High Court will automatically dispose of the civil appeal pending in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Mandi, and that despite being aware of the death of Shri Bhagat Ram Sharma, Advocate, applicants did not care to contact anyone in Mandi to find out as to what happened to their appeal when their counsel had died.

(3.) The applicants have filed rejoinder wherein the factum of applicants Balak Ram and Daulat Ram being employees has been admitted, but it has been denied that applicant No. 4 is a Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat. Otherwise the averments made in the application for condonation of delay have been reaffirmed.