Appeal

Appointment of Lambardar – Appeal/ revision can be admitted after the limitation period if the appellant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal/ revision within such period -- Delay of every day has to be justified -- No plausible explanation has been given for the undue delay -- Thus the abnormal delay of 2465 days does not deserve condonation and the same is rejected -- Appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine being time barred. Gian Chand v. Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Collector, Hoshiarpur and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 580 (FC Pb.).

Communication of order -- Petitioner was represented by the Advocate and the case was decided by the Commissioner and the orders was announced in the presence of his counsel – It was the duty to his counsel to communicate orders passed by the Commissioner to the petitioner. Surinder Mohan v. Administrator, New Mandi Township, Punjab, 2011(2) L.A.R. 571 (FC Pb.).

Haryana Rent Act -- Interlocutory orders -- Revision -- Prior to the Harjit Singh Uppal’s judgment, JT 2011(6) SC 236 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was consistent view of the High Court that appeals filed against the order of Rent Controller except under Sections 4, 10, 12 and 13 of Rent Act were not appealable and only revision was maintainable before High Court against such orders – Held, thus, the earlier withdrawal of the appeal to avail the remedy of revision petition cannot come in their way to pursue their remedy of appeal filed before the Appellate Authority. Harish Chand and others v. Anil Kumar, 2011(2) L.A.R. 666 (P&H).

Punjab Rent Act -- Maintainability of appeal -- Interlocutory order – Final Order -- Section 15(1)(b) provides, to a person aggrieved by an order passed by the Rent Controller, a remedy of appeal -- Provision, for maintaining the appeal, does not make any difference between the final order and interlocutory order passed by the Rent Controller. Harjit Singh Uppal v. Anup Bansal, 2011(2) L.A.R. 486 (SC).

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 -- Eviction order – Stay of order -- In an appeal against the order of eviction/possession, first appellate authority while admitting the appeal or while issuing notice ordinarily should stay operation and effect of order/decree of eviction/possession. Ram Sarup v. State of Punjab and another, 2011(2) L.A.R. 275 (P&H).

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 -- Stay of eviction order – Right of – Appellate authority was not well within its jurisdiction while rejecting stay application seeking stay of the eviction order on the very first day without assigning any reason while observing reasoned order will be passed in future -- Action of the appellate authority cannot be appreciated and approved. Santa Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2011(2) L.A.R. 208 (P&H).

Revision -- Appeal/ revision can be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant satisfied the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal/ revision within such period -- Delay of every day has to be justified -- No plausible explanation has been given for the undue delay on 13 years, 4 month and 30 days -- Thus the abnormal delay of more than 13 years does not deserve condonation, the same is rejected -- Revision petition dismissed being time barred. Surinder Mohan v. Administrator, New Mandi Township, Punjab, 2011(2) L.A.R. 571 (FC Pb.).

Stay of eviction order – Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 – Held, in an appeal against the order of eviction/possession, first appellate authority while admitting the appeal or while issuing notice ordinarily should stay operation and effect of order/decree of eviction/possession. Santa Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2011(2) L.A.R. 208 (P&H).