Sr. No.120 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-6207-2025 (O&M)

th Date of decision: 20 March 2026 BHARAT SHARMA .....…Petitioner versus JAINENDRA GURUKUL AND OTHERS ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN Present: Ms. Vibha Nagar, Advocate for the applicant-petitioner.

Mr. Adarsh Jain, Senior Advocate with Ms. Kamaldeep Kaur, Advocate for the respondents.

HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN, J. (ORAL)

CM-4257-CII-2026

1. In view of the averments made in the application, the same is allowed.

2. The date of hearing of the main case is preponed from

06.05.2026 and the same is taken on board for hearing today itself.

3. CM stands disposed of.

Main case

4. Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 18.07.2025 (Annexure P-1), passed by the learned District Judge, Panchkula, whereby, the application filed by the respondent under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was allowed and delay of 1162 days was condoned.

5. As per the brief facts, the respondent earlier approached this Court by way of filing CWP-12773-2023, which was dismissed vide order dated 14.03.2024 (Annexure P-3),observing that there is a statutory alternate remedy of appeal available to the petitioner.

5.1. Thereafter, the respondent filed an appeal against the order dated 22.02.2021, passed under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. Along with the said appeal, an application seeking condonation of delay was filed. The said application was allowed vide order dated 18.7.2025 by the District Judge, Panchkula, subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/-. This fact is not disputed that the cost amounting to Rs.10,000/- has been accepted by the petitioner vide order dated 10.09.2025, passed by the District Judge, Panchkula.

6. By way of filing the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order whereby the delay in filing the appeal was condoned by District Judge, Panchkula.

7. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the paperbook.

8. The petitioner had wrongly availed remedy by way of filing a civil writ petition which was dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy vide order dated 14.3.2024 (Annexure P-3).

9. Thereafter, the petitioner has availed the remedy of an appeal and along with the appeal, an application for condonation of delay was filed. The delay was though for a period of 1162 days but it has been condoned only with the conditional order of payment of costs of 10,000/-.

10. Today, counsel for the respondents has informed that the petitioner has accepted the costs before the Appellate Court i.e. District Judge, Panchkula and this fact has been noted in the order dated 10.9.2025 passed by the said Court. Copy of the order is submitted in the Court which is taken on record as Annexure-C. Registry to tag the same at the appropriate place.

11. While deciding the revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court observed that in a matter titled as “M/s Standard Brands Limited v. Paras Ram and others”decided on 30.8.2013 passed in CR-90-2012 that the revision petition to challenge the impugned order is not maintainable where the costs have been accepted in terms of the conditional impugned order. The observations of the Court are as under : -

“xxxxxx Admittedly, it has been recorded in order dated 06.12.2011 passed by the trial Court that the costs amount has been paid by the plaintiff. In view thereof, the instant revision petition to challenge the impugned order is not maintainable.

xxxxxx”

12. In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove and the ratio of the aforesaid order, the present petition is not maintainable since costs have been accepted by the petitioner.

13. Consequently, the present civil revision stands dismissed.

14. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN)

JUDGE th

20 March 2026 Simran/Paritosh Kumar Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No