Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Capt. Narinder Singh v. Manjit Singh & Ors - CR-3389-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 4262 (17 July 2006)

C.R. No. 3389 of 2005 (1)


C.R. No. 3389 of 2005

Date of Decision: 24.7.2006

Capt. Narinder Singh ...Petitioners


Manjit Singh and others ....Respondents

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta.

Present: Shri R.K. Joshi, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Shri Naresh Bansal, Advocate, for the respondents.


The challenge in the present revision petition is to the order passed by the learned first Appellate Court on 27.9.2004, whereby an application for condonation of delay in filing of appeal, was dismissed and consequently, the appeal was also dismissed.

The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for declaration claiming the estate of one Bhagwant Singh on the basis of natural succession. The said suit was dismissed on 14.6.2003 but the appeal against the said judgment and decree was filed on 14.11.2003 along with an application for condonation of delay in filing of appeal. It was the case of the petitioner that he has gone to USA and Canada in the month of June, 2002 and returned on 7th

October, 2003 and thereafter, he applied for copy of the judgment, C.R. No. 3389 of 2005 (2)

which was supplied to him on 27.10.2003 and filed the appeal.

The learned first appellate Court has found that the trial Court has dismissed the suit on the ground that the petitioner has not led any evidence after framing of issues on 19.8.2002 in as much as five opportunities were availed by the plaintiff for leading of evidence but evidence was not led even after imposing of costs. The Court found that the petitioner has not produced his passport to support his averments.

The petitioner has claimed the estate of his father Bhagwant Singh by way of natural succession. The suit was contested by defendant Nos. 1 to 3 wherein it was alleged that the property has been bequeathed to defendant No.1 according to a registered Will dated 19.12.1996. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit on 14.6.2003 as no evidence was led by the plaintiff, in as much as even the plaintiff has not stepped into witness box. The appeal was filed after the period of limitation along with an application seeking condonation of delay on the ground that he had gone abroad. The petitioner has not produced his passport, the primary evidence to show that he was out of India on the dates given by him. Thus, the Court returned a finding that the petitioner has failed to disclose sufficient cause for condonation of delay.

Keeping in view the fact that no evidence has been led by the plaintiff on merits, I do not find any justification to condone delay so as to relegate the matter to first Appellate Court for decision afresh. There is no explanation as to why the evidence could not be led before the learned trial Court, when the case was fixed for evidence. Consequently, I do not find any ground to interfere in the order passed by the learned first Appellate Court, which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its C.R. No. 3389 of 2005 (3)

revisional jurisdiction.

Hence, the present petition is dismissed.

24.7.2006 (HEMANT GUPTA)



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.