In CR-1643-2020-PUNJ HC- In absence of justifiable reasons, no ground for condonation is made out where petitioner slept over its right for more than 3 years before filing appeal against lower Court's decision decreeing suit for declaration: P&H HC
Justice Harkesh Manuja [06-09-2022]

Read Order: The Executive Officer of Market Committee, Bhiwani v. Pritam Kumar 

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, September 7, 2022:  While dealing with a revision petition assailing the order of the lower appellate court which dismissed the petitioner’s application for the condition of delay of more than three years in filing the first appeal against the decree passed in a suit for declaration in favour of the plaintiff (respondent), the Punjab and Haryana High Court has opined that the petitioner/department was sleeping over the matter and in the meanwhile, substantial rights accrued in favour of the respondent/plaintiff who raised construction over the plot in question.

The Bench of Justice Harkesh Manuja held that no reasonable grounds were given for accepting the application for condonation of delay. 

The petitioner challenged the order of the first Appellate Court whereby an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for the condonation of delay, filed by the petitioner along with his first appeal was dismissed finding no ground for condonation of delay. 

The facts of the case are such that the plaintiff (respondent) instituted a suit for declaration against the defendants (now petitioner) claiming ownership of suit property on the basis of the allotment order. The respondent further challenged the notice via which he was called upon to pay interest/penal interest on the extension fee etc. Further, a prayer for an injunction was also made. 

The Trial Court decreed the suit. Having accepted the judgement and the decree and without agitating the issue any further for more than a period of three years, an appeal was filed by the petitioner along with an application for Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of three years and three months. 

On a pointed query from the petitioner’s counsel, the Counsel stated that the respondent raised construction over the plot in question after the decision rendered by the trial Court and before the filing of the first appeal. 

The Court observed that once, the petitioner did not challenge the judgement and decree during the period, the respondent/plaintiff was raising the construction over the plot in question and this fact was duly in their knowledge, the reason mentioned by them in their application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as based on administrative exigencies and that too seeking condonation of an inordinate delay of 3 years 3 months and 18 days cannot be accepted. Further, it added that in fact, it was the petitioner/department, who was sleeping over the matter and in the meanwhile, substantial rights accrued in favour of the respondent/plaintiff who raised construction over the plot in question.

Additionally, from a perusal of the petitioner’s application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Court opined that vague averments made therein did not constitute any sufficient cause for condoning the unexplained and inordinate delay in filing the appeal. 

For the reasons stated hereinabove, the Court did not find any reason to interfere with the well-reasoned order of the first Appellate Court. Accordingly, the present revision petition was dismissed.