Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 644 (HP)

Krishan Chand v. Kamla Devi

2016-05-03

RAJIV SHARMA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. This petition is instituted against the order dated 8.5.2015 rendered by the District Judge, Solan in CMA No. 309-S/6 of 2013. 2. “Key facts” necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that petitioner had instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 77,000/- against the respondents. Learned trial court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 30.3.2013. Petitioner filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Solan alongwith an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act. The District Judge dismissed the application on 8.5.2015. Hence, the present petition. 2. According to the grounds taken in the application filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act, the copies of judgment and decree passed by the trial court though supplied to him were misplaced. Petitioner remained under bona fide belief that he has handed over the judgment and decree to his counsel, but his counsel told him that the same were not handed over to him. Thereafter, petitioner again applied for the copies of judgment and decree through his counsel on 24.7.2013. The copies were supplied to him on 1.8.2013. 4. Petitioner was present in the court at the time of pronouncement of judgment. He was apprised by his counsel that the suit has been dismissed. He immediately applied for the copies of judgment and decree. However, his statement has not been corroborated by any material on record. He has not examined his counsel or clerk of his counsel to establish that he had applied for copies of judgment and decree immediately after pronouncement of judgment. He has not summoned the record of Copying Agency at Kandaghat to establish that he had applied for copies of judgment and decree on 30.3.2013. It was the material evidence available to the petitioner. The petitioner has failed to explain satisfactorily delay of more than five months in filing an appeal. There were no sufficient grounds to condone the delay. There is neither any perversity nor any illegality in the order dated 8.5.2015 passed by the learned District Judge, Solan. 5. Accordingly, in view of the analysis and discussion made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.