##PAGE1##

RSA-2106-2023 (O&M)(cid:1) Page 1 of 8 (cid:1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

223 RSA-2106-2023(O&M)

Date of decision: 27.03.2026

Balkar Singh ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Harmesh Singh & Others ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present:- Mr. Harkaran Singh, Advocate (Legal Aid Counsel)

for the appellant.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J. CM-7120-C-2023

This is an application under Section 151 of CPC for condonation

of delay of 757 days in re-filing the appeal.

The reason for condonation of such inordinate delay in filing the

present appeal is that:-

“… … …registry again raised objection on 22.06.2022 and thereafter, the undersigned counsel change his office for whitewash, during that period the brief of the present case are mis-placed, yesterday it was found from the decided cases and today is being filed without any further delay, so

the delay has occurred.”

The above-said explanation given by the applicant/appellant is

cryptic and does not constitute sufficient cause to condone the inordinate

SUNENA

2026.04.01 09:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

(cid:1)

RSA-2106-2023 (O&M)(cid:1) Page 2 of 8 (cid:1)

delay of 757 days in re-filing the appeal. No Details are given and no material is furnished to show as to on what date the learned Counsel had changed his office. In recent judgment of “Shivamma (Dead) by LRs Vs. Karnataka Housing Board & Others” Civil Appeal No.11794 of 2025 decided on 12.09.2025, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that delay of each day is to be explained. To condone such an inordinate delay, would be tantamount to declaring the Law of Limitation as redundant; and would also be prejudicial to the rights of the

opposite party.

Accordingly, the present application stands dismissed

CM-7122-C-2023

This is an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act read with

Section 151 CPC for condonation of delay of 68 days in filing the appeal.

After going through the contents of the application, which is

supported by affidavit of the appellant, the same is allowed subject to all just

exceptions and delay of 68 days in filing the present appeal is condoned.

MAIN CASE

Present appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the

concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below whereby suit filed by the appellant for declaration and permanent injunction, has been

dismissed by both the Courts below.

2. Mr. Harkaran Singh, Advocate (Legal Aid Counsel) appears on

behalf of the appellant and files Power of Attorney, which is taken on record.

SUNENA

2026.04.01 09:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

(cid:1)

RSA-2106-2023 (O&M)(cid:1) Page 3 of 8 (cid:1)

3. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 3 real brothers and defendant No.4 is their father. On 05.06.1991, the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 3 had purchased 0 kanal 10 marla land in the name of defendant No.4; and again on 19.06.1995 land measuring 0 kanal 10 marla was bought in same manner. It is contended that sale consideration was paid from joint Hindu Family Funds. However, defendant No.4 had transferred the land measuring 0 kanal 10 marla in favour of defendant No.1 vide Transfer Deed dated 17.03.2008. Defendant No.4 had also transferred land measuring 0 kanal 17 marla in favour of defendants No.2 and 3 vide Sale Deed dated 17.07.2012. It is contended that the said Transfer Deeds were illegal, null and void; and the consequent Mutations No.552 and 649 had also been wrongly entered on the basis of the said Transfer Deeds. It is submitted that the plaintiff had been wrongly ignored and that he has a right,

title and interest in the suit property.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff further submits that the Courts below failed to take into account that even after filing the present suit, the appellant and the respondents had entered into a Compromise in the presence of Jathedar Buta Singh of village Shadipur and other persons