The court emphasized the importance of sufficient cause for condonation of delay and the need to adhere to legal procedures.

K.C. Gupta, J. - This revision petition is directed by the defendants against order dated 9.5.2000 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jagadhri, whereby their application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal was dismissed as time barred.

2. Briefly stated, the facts are that Smt. Bachni Devi, respondent, through her general power of attorney, Hari Ram, filed a suit for separate possession by partition of House No. 60, Shastri Colony, Yamunanagar, against the petitioners Smt. Shashi Bala etc. on 28.5.1990 on the allegation, that once it was held by Late Amar Nath, Smt. Bachni Devi widow of Sh. Siri Krishan and the petitioners (defendants) as joint Hindu family property.

3. It was further averred that Amar Nath expired on 5.12.1979 leaving behind his mother Smt. Bachni Devi, Smt. Shashi Bala widow, his son Ashish Gupta, daughters Sangeeta Gupta and Sarita (minors) as his legal heirs and, thus, the petitioners and the respondent became joint owners in equal share having 1/5th share each. However, the petitioners were in possession of the whole of the property and were enjoying the same in excess of their respective shares, so the respondent was entitled to mesne profits and was also entitled to take separate possession of 1/5th share.

4. The petitioners contested the suit. They denied the allegations of the respondent and stated that the respondent was neither owner, nor in possession of the house in dispute and as such, had no locus-standi to file suit for separate possession by partition. They further stated that during his life time, Amar Nath had executed a valid will in favour of his wife, Shashi Bala on 14.10.1979 as it was self acquired property of Amar Nath and by virtue of that will, Shashi Bala, had become owner in exclusive possession of the house in dispute after the death of Amar Nath. They further denied that it was joint Hindu Family property of Amar Nath and the respondent or they constituted joint Hindu family property. Consequently, the following issues were framed :-

1. Whether suit property was the joint Hindu Family property of Amar Nath deceased, plaintiff and defendants as alleged ? OPP

2. If issued No. 1 is proved, whether plaintiff was having 1/5th share in the suit property ? OPP

3. Whether suit property was the joint properties of Amar Nath and defendant No. 1 as alleged ? OPD

4. Whether Amar Nath executed a valid will dated 14.10.1979 in favour of the defendant No. 1 if so, its effect ? OPD

5. Whether defendant No. 4 has not properly sued as alleged ? OPD

6. Whether defendants No. 3 and 4 have no right in the suit property ? OPD

7. Whether defendant No. 1 is entitled to special costs as alleged ? OPD

8. Relief."

The parties adduced their evidence.

After hearing counsel for the parties, the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Jagadhri, vide judgement and decree dated 3.4.1999 decreed the suit of the respondent-plaintiff by holding that respondent was entitled to separate possession by partition of 1/5th share of House No. 60, Shastri Colony, Yamunanagar. Consequentially, preliminary decree was passed by holding under Issue Nos. 1 and 2 that the will dated 21.6.1988, Ex. P1, was duly executed by Smt. Bachni in favour of her son, Hari Ram and according to that will Hari Ram was entitled to separate possession of 1/5th share of the suit property by meets and bounds. The petitioners did not lead any evidence on issue Nos. 3 to 7 and as such, the same were decided against them. It was also held that there is no evidence that Amar Nath had executed any will dated 14.10.1979 in favour of his wife Shashi Bala.

5. Aggrieved by the said judgement and decree, the defendants filed an appeal, in which they moved an application for condonation of delay, which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Jagadhri, vide order dated 9.5.2000 by holding that there was no sufficient cause for condonation of delay.

6. Dis-satisfied by the said order, the defendants have filed the present revision petition.

7. I hav