JUDGMENT :

Ritu Tagore, J. (Oral)

1. This common order shall dispose of the above title revision petitions, arising from the same order dated 07.02.2017 (Annexure P-5) passed in- (I) Civil Appeal No. 100 of 2015 titled as 'Balbir vs. Dhansi Ram and Another', arising out of suit No.314 RT of 2003 titled as Dhansi Ram vs. Balbir Singh and Another; (II) Civil Appeal No.99 of 2015 titled as Balbir and Another vs. Parbhati and Others (Annexure P-5), arising out of civil suit No.216 RT of 2001, titled as Parbhati vs. Ram Sarup and Others; (III) Civil Appeal No.101 of 2015 titled as Balbir vs. Govt. of Haryana and Others, arising out of Civil Suit No.392 of 2004 titled Balbir Singh vs. Government of Haryana and Others.

2. The counsel for the parties have agreed and consented to decide these revisions, together, having similar questions of facts and law involved therein.

3. It would be desirable to go through the factual background, leading to filing of these revisions. As explicit from the paper book and documents appended, three suits namely CS No.216 RT of 2001 titled Parbhati Lal vs. Ram Sarup and Others for declaration and permanent injunction, was filed with material averments that suit property as detailed in the plaint, ie., Ahata No.336 Ghar No.380 and its Gosa is in continuous possession of the plaintiff and proforma defendants as owners, and the wrong entries appearing in the record are liable to be corrected and defendants be restrained from interfering in peaceful possession and use of the common passage comprise in Ahata No.339/Ghar No.383 Gosa, area 14 Biswansi; (ii) Suit No.392/2004 titled as Balbir Singh vs. Government of Haryana and Others, was instituted for declaration-cum-injunction, asserting that plaintiff is owner of a residential plot comprised in Ahata No.335 House No.379 with boundaries and measurements as detailed in the plaint, as recorded in the revenue record and the local commissioner report is illegal beyond the revenue record and defendants be restrained from demolishing the construction of the plaintiff and he be compensated for illegal acts of defendants. (iii) Suit No.314 RT/2013 was filed by Dhansi Ram titled as Dhansi vs. Balbir and others for permanent injunction, pleading that he is owner in possession of suit property Ahata No.334-A/Ghar No.378 as detailed in plaint and defendants be restrained from interfering in his possession, and be directed to remove construction if any raised on the suit property.

4. Learned trial Court consolidated all the suits and decided them by single judgment dated 15.03.2010. The petitioner initially filed one consolidated appeal against the judgment and decree dated 15.03.2010. The learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul vide judgment and decree dated 07.03.2014, dismissed the appeal, observing that one appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 15.03.2010 vide which three suits were tried together and decided, is not maintainable. The petitioner filed, revision No.3919 of 2015, challenging the judgment and decree dated 15.03.2010 of the learned trial Court and judgment and decree dated 07.03.2014, of learned 1st Appellate court, which was subsequently withdrawn vide order dated 10.08.2015 with liberty to avail alternate remedy in accordance with law. Thereafter, the petitioner filed three separate appeals detailed above, with the delay of 1999 days, which were dismissed vide order(s) dated 07.02.2017, respectively, holding that appeals are time-barred while dismissing the application for condonation of delay, with the observation that no ground is made out to condone the delay in filing the appeals. The relevant paragraphs of the impugned order are extracted below: ( this order is taken from CR No. 2364, since the orders impugned in other CR 2894 and 2917 are identical, they are not repeated, to avoid redundancy)

"18. The above said settled principle of law when applied to the facts in hand, it comes out that no specific plea has been put forward by the appel