High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Major Singh v. Jagroop singh & Ors. - CR-2279-2006  RD-P&H 2729 (1 May 2006)
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.2279 of 2006
Date of decision: April 25, 2006.
Jagroop singh & Ors.
Present: Shri Satwant Singh Rangi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Surya Kant, J. (Oral)
There was a blood-shed between the parties as a result of which persons from both the side were convicted and sentenced under section 302 or 307 read with sections 325, 324, 447, 148, 149 IPC and the Arms Act.
The afore-mentioned criminal case(s) arose out of FIR No.74 dated 13.11.1994 registered at Police Station, Bhadson. Against their convictions, the parties preferred cross-appeals before this Court. During the pendency of the appeals, admittedly, a compromise was arrived at between them on 24.2.1999 "in order to end the enmity". From the contents of the impugned order, it is revealed that pursuant to the said compromise, both the parties were released on bail by this Court. Notwithstanding the said compromise, the petitioner, who meanwhile had filed a suit for compensation against the respondents for committing the murder of his family member, continued to pursue the said suit which was decreed on 13.12.2002.
Civil Revision No.2279 of 2006 - 2 -
The respondents filed an appeal against the above stated judgment and decree much after the expiry of the period of limitation along with an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act. The said application has since been allowed by the learned District Judge vide his impugned order, dated January 06, 2006 after holding that there are sufficient grounds for condonation of the delay. In this context, the learned District Judge has placed reliance upon the evidence led by the applicant- appellants and has also made a detailed reference to the contents of the 'compromise' arrived at between the parties on 24.2.1999 and has thereafter concluded that the respondent-appellants were under the bona fide impression as if the civil litigation between the parties had also come to an end.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that since in the 'compromise' arrived at between the parties there was no mention regarding withdrawal of the civil litigation, the plea taken by the respondents for condonation of delay has no factual basis. He has also placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Bhairo Parshad v. Karam Chand, 2000(4) RCR (Civil) 519.
There is no denial to the fact that after conviction of both the parties in the criminal proceedings, a 'compromise' had taken place between them with the sole purpose "to end enmity". It could, thus, be reasonably inferred by the respondents that after the said 'compromise', the petitioners herein would not pursue the civil suit for damages also which they had already filed as an off-shoot of the criminal proceedings.
Be that as it may, the learned District Judge has merely condoned the delay in filing of the appeal thereby giving an opportunity to Civil Revision No.2279 of 2006 - 3 -
the respondents to contest the petitioner's claim on merits.
It is well settled that the expression "sufficient cause" as contained in Section 5 of the Act is to receive a liberal construction in order to advance the substantial justice. Since the first appellate court, on the basis of material on record, has formed an opinion that there existed 'sufficient grounds' for condonation of the delay and the formation of such opinion being neither perverse nor laconic, there appears to be no error of jurisdiction in passing the impugned order, which may call for interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
April 25, 2006. [ Surya Kant ]
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.