Parkash Singh vs Smt. Chhiodo

K.K. Srivastava, J.—This revision is directed against the order dated 18.2.1999 passed by the Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur vide which he has declined to condone the delay u/s 5 of the Limitation Act in filing the Civil Appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court passed on 3.3.1994. The appellant in this application seeking condonation of delay took the ground that he had left his village for Delhi to see his relative in the last week of February, 1994 where he fell ill and could not attend the Court on the date fixed. He alleged that he returned from Delhi on 4.4.1994 and met his counsel on 6.4.1994 when he learnt about the judgment and. decree passed by the trial Court and applied for obtaining certified copies of the judgment and decree on 29.4.1994 and the appeal was filed on the very next day. The date of institution is, however, mentioned in the order as 3.5.1994. Notices of the application were issued to the respondents who contested the claim of the appellant and denied the averments made in the application for seeking condonation of delay. On these pleadings of the parties the learned Additional District Judge Gurdaspur framed the following issues:

Whether there are sufficient grounds to condone the delay in filing the appeal? OPA.

Relief.

Petitioner Parkash Singh entered the witness box as AW-1 while respondent Parsin Kaur appeared as RW-1 and parties closed their evidence. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties the learned Additional District Judge recorded his findings against the appellant and held that the appellant failed to show sufficient grounds for condonation of delay. In view of the findings recorded on Issue No. 1 the appeal was dismissed as being bared by limitation.

Feeling aggrieved against the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, this revision has been filed.

Mr. Jaswal, appearing for the petitioners contended that the petitioner had led evidence to show that he was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. He has referred to the findings recorded by the learned Additional District Judge and, particularly, paras 10 and 13 of the impugned judgment. After carefully perusing the impugned judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, it is quite apparent that the appellant himself admitted the fact that he was present in the trial Court, when the judgment was pronounced on 3.3.1994. He further stated that after the judgment had been pronounced he had gone to Delhi and there he fell ill. The learned Additional District Judge held that no evidence such as the medical certificate has been placed to prove the fact of the appellant falling ill there. In view of these findings the learned Additional District Judge declined to condone the delay.

In view of the fact that the appellant himself admitted about his presence in the trial Court when the suit was decided vide judgment dated 3.3.1994, the appellant was required to apply for the certified copies of the judgment and decree of the trial Court within the prescribed period of limitation. However, that was not applied and the explanation offered by him in his application was rather contrary inasmuch as he claimed no knowledge of the pronouncement of the judgment by the trial Court on 3.3.1994. The averments made in the application were, thus, not supported by the appellant himself in the witness box and in this view of the matter and also in view of the fact that no evidence was led to support his allegation that he fell ill at Delhi and remained confined there, the delay in filing the appeal was rightly not condoned. The Hon''ble Supreme Court has recently in the case of P.K. Ramachandran Vs. State of Kerala and Another, held that the delay cannot be condoned only on the ground of equity.

Resultantly, this revision lacks merit and is dismissed.