In CR-1070-2023 (O&M)-PUNJ HC- Delay ought to have been condoned where sufficient cause was shown: P&H HC
Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal [16-02-2023]

Read Order: VIJAY KUMAR AND ANOTHER V. NEELAM SINGLA AND OTHERS

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, February 17, 2023: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana has recently held ordinarily delay ought to have been condoned where sufficient cause has been shown and the case be heard and decided on merits.

In this case before the Bench of Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal, the applicant/petitioners challenged the impugned order passed by the Additional Judge, Barnala whereby his application for condonation of delay of 1 year 4 months was dismissed and impugned judgement and decree passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Barnala whereby the suit of the plaintiffs/petitioners, was dismissed.

The suit was filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners for partition. The first defendant was the widow of the deceased-brother of the plaintiff while the other defendants were their children. The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court by holding that the plaintiffs were not in joint possession of the property with the defendants as the property was already partitioned and the parties had constructed their houses.

The petitioners' counsel submitted that the petitioners were not aware of the dismissal of their suit as they were not informed by their counsel. It was further added that immediately upon learning of the dismissal of the suit in the year 2018, the petitioners promptly filed an appeal along with an application for condonation of delay which should have been decided on merits

After hearing the parties, the Court observed that it was unable to accept the contention of the counsel that the delay ought to have been condoned for the reason that the petitioners had been duly represented by their counsel. The Bench rather observed that the suit had been dismissed on merits after considering the evidence which had been led by the plaintiffs and the defendants and that the petitioners had also filed another civil suit and they had been pursuing the same along with the instant suit. 

"It was enjoined upon the plaintiffs to have filed the appeal within the period of limitation", the Bench asserted while also adding, 

"It is true that ordinarily delay ought to have been condoned where sufficient cause has been shown and the case be heard and decided on merits". 

However, in the instant case, it was observed that the petitioners were pursuing not only the instant case but other civil suit as well before the Courts at Barnala, therefore, the Court held that it cannot be countenanced that they were not aware of the dismissal of the suit.

"In the event of their not being informed about the dismissal of the suit by their counsel, they ought to have proceeded against the counsel including filing of a complaint which they have admittedly not done", the Court held. 

Consequently, the present petition was dismissed.