Courts must prioritize substantial justice over technical considerations and adopt a liberal view in deciding applications for limitation.

JUDGMENT

Anil Kshetarpal, J. - The hearing of the case was held through video conferencing on account of restricted functioning of the Courts.

2. The plaintiff has filed this revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure assailing the correctness of an order passed by the learned first appellate Court declining to condone the delay of 151 days in filing the first appeal.

3. Some facts are required to be noticed.

4. The plaintiff filed a suit for possession of plot measuring 4650 sq. yds. comprised in Khasra No.845/2(7-14) situated in village Patti Gill, Tehsil and District Bathinda, by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 21.11.2009. As per the agreement to sell dated 21.11.2009, the property was agreed to be sold for Rs.4 Crore, after receipt of Rs.1,50,00,000/- as earnest money.

5. The defendant contested the suit and submitted that he has received a sum of Rs.67,50,000/- and not Rs.1,50,00,000/-. Along with the suit, an application for grant of an injunction was filed which was allowed by the learned trial Court vide an order dated 23.05.2012. The defendant filed an appeal before the learned first appellate court assailing the correctness of the injunction granted. On 24.07.2012, the first appellate court requisitioned the lower court record for 23.08.2012. On the next date i.e. 23.08.2021, after noticing that the lower court record has not been received, the same was again requisitioned for 19.09.2012. On 19.09.2012, once again, the record was not received and the case was adjourned to 05.11.2012. Again on 05.11.2012, the record was not received. Hence, the case was adjourned to 17.11.2012 with another direction to requisition the record. On 17.11.2012, the Court noticed that the lower court record has been received and the appeal be posted for arguments on 26.11.2012. Thereafter, on 2-3 occasions, the arguments could not be heard and therefore, on 28.01.2013, the first appellate court directed the lower court record be returned with a direction that it be summoned one day before the next date fixed. Again on various occasions, the appeal was adjourned on the ground that the lower court record has not been received.

6. In the meantime, the learned trial Court framed the issues on 03.05.2012 and adjourned the case for plaintiff's evidence on 14.08.2012. On 14.08.2012, 06.11.2012 and 11.02.2013, no plaintiff's witness was present and therefore, on 23.04.2013, the trial court dismissed the suit under Order 17 Rule 3 CPC.

7. After dismissal of the suit on 23.04.2013, the appeal against the order of injunction had become infructuous. However, neither the appellate court nor the counsel representing the parties appeared to be in knowledge of the dismissal of the suit. The first appellate court after 23.04.2013, passed the following orders:-