Yash Pal Singh v. Kehar Singh and Others

IN T

Yash Pal Singh Kehar Singh and

CORAM : HON

Present: Mr

MANDEEP PA

1.

Pre India has been dated 04.09.202 and, consequen rejected as time-

2.

instituted by the

19.11.2024 pass counter-claim o advanced age i. infirmity he w remained unawa which he becam the Execution P appeal on 05.08

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

CR

De

VERSUS d Others

N'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDE r. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the -.- ANNU J. esent Revision Petition under A filed by the petitioner, Mr. Ya 25 whereby the application for c ntially, the first appeal filed by -barred. e factual matrix, as urged be e respondent/plaintiff was decre sed by the learned Civil Judge ( f the petitioner/defendant was di e. 72 years and suffers from mu was unable to contact his prev are of the judgment and decree. me cognisant of the final order w Petition on 22.07.2025. Thereup

8.2025, though the appeal was

JAB AND HARYANA ARH R-6601-2025 (O&M) cided on :- 22.09.2025

....Petitioner ....Respondents EEP PANNU e petitioner. Article 227 of the Constitution ashpal Singh, impugning the or condonation of delay was dismis the petitioner on 05.08.2025 w efore this Court, is that the s eed by judgment and decree da (Junior Division), Bilaspur and ismissed. The petitioner is a man ultiple ailments. On account of vious counsel and, consequen He states that the first occasion was when he received summons on he took steps and filed the f delayed by 235 days. The learn

- n of rder ssed was suit ated n of his ntly, n on s in first

lower appellate ground that the seven co-defend lower Court furt of State of Hary

(2019) 2 ACJ 2 of counsel does Limitation Act.

3.

Lea that the delay contemplated in incapacity to ac he received the a substantive ri petitioner to ve condoned subjec costs to meet an

4.

I ha is aware that ap and equitable gr is to weigh the applicant, the ab would suffer pr guiding princip plausible and cr Court, after hearing the parties, r e explanation was not satisfact dants who were equally affecte ther relied upon the principle in ryana Urban Development Auth 256 (SC) cited by the respondent s not ordinarily constitute suffic

arned counsel for the petitioner was neither intentional nor n the authorities. Rather it aro t because of old age and ailmen execution summons. It was furth ight and, in the interests of ju entilate his defence and contest ct to such terms as this Court ma ny prejudice caused to the respon ave considered the submissions pplications for condonation of de rounds. The settled approach un e length of delay, the explanati bsence or presence of mala fide rejudice which cannot be comp ples to the present case, I find redible explanation for the delay

refused to condone the delay on tory and observed that there w ed and yet did not take steps. T the ratio of the decision in the c hority and another v. Gopi Cha t, which holds that mere neglige cient cause under Section 5 of , however, urged before this Co due to negligence in the se se out of the petitioner's genu nts, and that he acted promptly o her urged that the right of appea ustice and in order to enable the decree, the delay ought to ay deem fit, including imposition ndents. and perused the record. The Co elay are to be decided on pragma der Section 5 of the Limitation A ion offered, the bona fides of es, and whether the objecting pa pensated by costs. Applying th d that the petitioner has given . His advanced age and the medi

- were case and nce ourt ense uine nce al is be n of ourt atic Act arty hese n a

disabilities he a case from those the inadvertenc respondents in delay was attri explanation and that due to infir lawyer and only

5.

Fur that fact alone d individual circu own merits. The establish delibe though sizeable, explained by the and there is n suppression. In justice, the pet extinguished by ends of justice foreclosed on te fairness to the r inconvenience c costs of Rs.10,0 avers are circumstances which e where delay has been sought t ce or neglect of an advocate. Gopi Chand's case (supra) is d ibutable to counsel's omission d the appellant could have taken rmity he could not manage his l y became aware of the decree upo rther, though it is true other co-d does not render the petitioner's umstances and capacity to act di e presence of co-defendants who rate laches on the part of this , is not inordinate in the circums e petitioner's physical incapacity o material on record to show the balance of convenience and titioner's right to seek appella y a rigid application of limitation favour trial of real controversie echnical grounds. That said, the respondent is also important; to caused, and as a condition for co 000 (Rupees Ten Thousand only)

materially distinguish the pres to be excused solely on account The decision relied upon by distinguishable on facts. There where there was no satisfact n steps, here the petitioner expla legal affairs or contact his previ on receipt of execution summons defendants were similarly affect explanation inherently improbab iffer and must be assessed on th o did not act does not automatica petitioner. The delay of 235 da stances narrated and is satisfacto y and late knowledge of the decr w mala fide motive or deliber d in the interest of doing substan ate adjudication ought not to n where a plausible cause exists, es on merit rather than their be e Court is conscious that ensur o compensate for the delay and ondonation, the petitioner shall p ) to the respondents.

- sent t of tory ains ous s. ted, ble, heir ally ays, rily ree, rate ntial be eing ring

6.

Acc extent it dismiss in presenting th on 05.08.2025 i petitioner shall Court within fou respondents, in forfeited and th restored.

7.

8.

Pen

September 22, 2 tripti

Whethe

Whethe cordingly, the impugned order d sed the application for condonat e appeal is hereby condoned, an is ordered to be restored and ad deposit the sum of Rs.10,000 ur weeks from the date of passin n default of such deposit, the he impugned order of the lower e present revision petition is allo nding application(s), if any, also 2025

er speaking/non-speaking : Speak er reportable

: Yes/N

dated 04.09.2025 is set aside to tion of delay, the delay of 235 d nd the appeal filed by the petitio dmitted for hearing on merits. T as costs with the Registry of t ng of this order for being paid to benefit of this order shall sta appellate Court shall be treated owed in the above-said terms. stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE king

- days oner this and