##PAGE1##

RSA-1610-2023 (O&M)(cid:1) Page 1 of 7

(cid:1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

209

RSA-1610-2023(O&M)

Date of decision: 08.05.2026

Kala Singh

...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Harbans Kaur

...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present:- Mr. Avtar Singh Bhatti, Advocate

for the appellant.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

CM-5804-C-2023

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

Section 151 CPC for condonation of delay of 238 days in filing the appeal.

It is mentioned in Para 3 of the present application that:-

“3. That the judgment and decree was passed 15.07.2021 during

Covid period and the appellant was not aware about the decision

of his appeal and he only came to know about the decision when

he received summons from Executing court, Dasuya, he

immediately contact his counsel, however his counsel pointed him

some relevant documents and the same was not traceable and

after lot of efforts the same was supplied after the delay of filling

the present appeal.”

The above cited reason does not constitute sufficient cause to

condone extraordinary delay of 238 days in filing the present appeal. The

SUNENA

2026.05.12 16:02

I agree to specified

portions of this document

(cid:1)

RSA-1610-2023 (O&M)(cid:1) Page 2 of 7

(cid:1)

applicant/appellant is admitting that he was not pursuing his case diligently as

he did not even know that decree had been passed. As such, the sole reason

cited by the appellant is not sufficient ground to condone delay of 238 days in

filing the appeal. Moreover, it is cardinal principle of law that delay of each day

has to be explained. In this regard, reliance may also be placed upon recent

judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Shivamma (Dead) by LRs Vs.

Karnataka Housing Board & Others” Civil Appeal No.11794 of 2025 decided

on 12.09.2025. As such, no ground is made out for condoning inordinate delay

of 238 days. Present application accordingly stands dismissed

MAIN CASE

The defendant is in Second Appeal against the concurrent

judgments and decrees of the District Courts whereby suit filed by the

plaintiff/respondent for possession with consequential relief of permanent

injunction, has been decreed by both the District Courts.

2. It was the pleaded case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff along with

her daughters and son is owner of land measuring 0 kanal 2 marla as described

in the plaint. Father of the defendant was serving the husband of the plaintiff

in his fields as daily wager. As such, husband of the plaintiff had allowed father

of the defendant to reside in the suit property. After demise of husband of

plaintiff, father of the defendant or defendants have no right, title or interest

in the suit property. It was alleged that the defendant is illegally, forcefully and

unlawfully threatening to encroach over the suit property by raising

SUNENA

2026.05.12 16:02

I agree to specified

portions of this document

(cid:1)

RSA-1610-2023 (O&M)(cid:1) Page 3 of 7

(cid:1)

construction thereupon. Hence, present Suit seeking possession of the suit

land or in the alternative suit for possession of the above property by removal

of construction raised by defendant during pendency of the Suit, was filed on

11.04.2014.

3. Upon appraisal of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence

adduced by the parties, ld. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dasuya had decreed of

Suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 26.10.2017 as follows:-

“7. As a sequel of my findings on the above said issues, the suit of

the plaintiff succeeds and decree for possession of land measuring

0K-2 Marlas comprised in khata No. 933/1000 Khasra No. 412(0-

2) marked as ABCD shown as RED in the site plan attached

herewith situated in village Miani, HB No. 532 as per entries

contained in Jamabandi for the year 2011-2012, Tehsil

Dasuya,Distt. Hoshiarpur is passed in favour of the plaintiff and

the defendant is directed to hand over the actual, physical, vacant

possession of the suit land to the plaintiff within a period of three

months from the date of judgment.

The sui