Rajinder Pal Singh vs Rakesh Kumari and Others

Paramjeet Singh, J.—Instant revision petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 29.3.2013 passed by learned District Judge, Jalandhar, whereby the application filed by the petitioner u/s 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, has been dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that husband of respondent No. 1 and father of respondents No. 2 and 3 filed a suit for recovery against the petitioner. The said suit was decreed ex parte vide judgment and decree dated 7.2.2008. Against that, petitioner filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. The said application was dismissed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar vide order dated 19.12.2009. Against that, petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge along with an application for condonation of delay of one year five months and thirteen days in filing the appeal. The said application was dismissed by learned District Judge, Jalandhar, consequently the appeal was also dismissed. Hence this revision petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was dismissed on 19.12.2009. Appeal along with application for condonation of delay was filed on 15.6.2011. In the application for condonation of delay, it was alleged that learned counsel did not inform the petitioner/applicant about the dismissal of said application. Except that, no other averments or grounds have been mentioned in the application for condonation of delay nor any cogent reasons have been mentioned as to why the applicant did not enquire from his counsel after 19.12.2009 till the date of application for condonation of delay i.e. 15.6.2011, approximately for about 1 1/2 years. Learned District Judge, after appreciating evidence on record, came to the conclusion that petitioner, who was applicant before the appellate court, has failed to show any sufficient ground for condoning the delay. Even on the asking of this court, the learned counsel for the petitioner failed to explain the same.

I am of the view that finding of fact has been recorded by learned lower appellate court and the petitioner has failed to show even to this court sufficient cause or reasons for condoning the delay of one year five months and thirteen days in filing appeal before the lower appellate court. In view of the above, present revision petition is dismissed.