Govind Singh and Another vs Tara Singh

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

CMP(M) No. 12106 of 2013:

The present application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act has been moved by the Judgment Debtors for condonation of delay in filing the revision petition. A decree has been rendered in favour of the respondent-decree holder by Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Court No. 1, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P. for exercising right of passage over/upon the suit property upon the khasra Nos., as enumerated in the decree in a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction. The same has attained finality.

On its having come to attain finality, the respondent-decree holder laid an Execution petition before the Court of First Instance which proceeded to enforce the decree by ordering the attachment of the property of the judgment debtors/revisionist for a period of six months. The said order in Execution petition was rendered on 29th January, 2013. The revision petition, assailing the legality of the order, rendered by the Court of First Instance, seized with the execution petition, flowing out of the judgment and decree rendered in favour of the decree holder, came to be filed on 13th December, 2013.

At this stage, prima-facie, a belated challenge has been laid at the instance of the judgment debtor to the orders rendered in the execution petition No. 6 of 2008. Learned counsel for the applicant was under an obligation to satisfy the conscience of this Court that the immense delay as has been occasioned in the filing of the revision, assailing the impugned order, is, a sequel to manifest, abundant and sufficient cause.

Learned counsel for the judgment debtor has laid emphasis upon the averments made in Paragraph-3 of the application to canvass before this Court that the obligation cast upon him has to be discharged.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-decree holder contends that no sufficient and good cause has been projected by the counsel for the petitioner-judgment debtor and a concocted ground has been put forth. Hence, learned counsel for the decree holder/respondent argues that the application is meritless and it be dismissed.

Considering the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, especially given the immense delay as has been occasioned in the filing of the revision petition before this Court against the impugned order, the unspecific, nebulous averments as have been raised in Paragraph-3 of the application in purported discharge of the obligation cast upon the learned counsel for the revisionist, omit to hence either unravel or project a good and sufficient cause, in the delay as has been occasioned. Hence, at this stage, for want of sufficient, satisfactory and abundant cause, having not been projected in the application for condonation of delay, this Court is constrained to conclude that the application being without merit warrants dismissal. Hence dismissed.

Civil Revision No. 4087 of 2012:

In view of the order passed in CMP(M) No. 12106 of 2013, the revision petition has rendered infructuous.

Registry is directed to send down the record of the case forthwith.