IMPORTANT POINT
For condonation delay must be properly and plausibly explained.

JUDGMENT : -

Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J. –

Leave granted.

2. These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 8th July, 2011 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Misc. Nos.11669-C to 11672-C of 2010 in R.S.A. No.1908 of 1995. By the impugned judgment, the High Court rejected the following Petitions:

(i) Civil Misc. Application under Section 151 C.P.C. for setting aside order dated 14th May, 2010 dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution;

(ii) Civil Misc. Petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay in bringing LRs on record and for setting aside order dismissing appeal in default; and

(iii) Civil Misc. Application under Order 22 Rule 3 C.P.C. for bringing LRs. of deceased appellant on record.

However, the High Court allowed the other applications under Sections 151 C.P.C to place on record the copies of judgment and decree dated 20th January, 2004 passed in RSA No.1822 of 2003 – Ajinder Kaur vs. Jalandhar Improvement Trust and judgment dated 15th March, 2000 in RSA No.3673/2000 – Jalandhar Improvement Trust vs. Harbhajan Kaur and others.

3. The case of the applicant, wife of original plaintiff – Ramesh Chander is that one Nasib Chand father of Ramesh Chander and respondent Nos.3 to 5 and husband of respondent No.2 was the owner of land measuring 28 Kanals 5 marlas situated at Basti Sheikh, Jalandhar, which was acquired by the respondent - Jalandhar Improvement Trust (hereinafter referred to as the “Trust”) for development of scheme known as “13.37 acres scheme”. Nasib Chand died on 8th May, 1987 leaving behind Ramesh Chander-original plaintiff and respondent Nos.2 to 5 as his heirs. The original plaintiff- Ramesh Chander made many requests to the respondent-Trust for allotting him a plot in lieu of the acquired land. Further case of the appellant is that the respondent-Trust ultimately allotted the disputed plot in a scheme known as “55 acres development scheme” to him. Thereafter, Ramesh Chander requested the respondent-Trust to accept instalment of Rs. 10,000/- and deliver vacant possession of the plot but to no effect. He served notice on the Trust also for admitting his claim and to hand over his possession of the allotted plot to him, but to no avail.

4. Ramesh Chander, therefore, filed Civil Suit No.123/1988 on 2nd March, 1988 for declaration that he was entitled to deposit Rs.10,000/- towards first instalment of plot No.456 and balance price thereof, allotted to him in “55 acres development scheme” and to its vacant possession and for mandatory injunction, directing respondent No.1 – Trust to receive the earnest money from him and to deliver its possession.

5. The defendant-respondent No.1 appeared and filed a written statement. The suit was decreed by Sub-Judge by judgment and decree on 10th June, 1988. Being aggrieved, the defendant-respondent filed an appeal, which was allowed and the case was remanded back to the Trial Court.

6. After remand, a fresh written statement was filed by the Trust, in which the Trust did not deny the factum that the plaintiff was a Local Displaced Person but disputed legality of allotment regarding Plot No.456 in 55 acre scheme on the ground that the Chairman had no right to allot any plot, and Plot No.456 was wrongly allotted. The Trial Court on hearing the parties decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff-Ramesh Chander and against the respondent-Trust holding as under:

“Since plot No.456 in 55 acre scheme has been allotted to the plaintiff, as Local Displaced Person on account of acquisition of the land of his father by the deft-trust and even possession of that plot is with him, as deposed by him attorney Prem Pal PW1, he is entitled to retain the allotment Prem Pal PW1, he is entitled to retain the allotment and its possession. The defendant-Trust is legally bound to honour that allotment and accept the price of the same from him as per the trust rules by instalments. Plaintiff has no doubt claimed possession of the plot in the suit b