a[( l) Any person aggrieved by an order of the competent authority may within thirty days from the date of—
(i) the service of notice under section S1 or section 52; or
(ii) the imposition of penalty under section 53-A prefer an appeal to the '[District Judge ot the uistriet in which the premises of the Roardare Situated or such other Judicial Officer in that District as the '{Administrator} may, in consultation with the High Court, appoint in this behalf].
Provided that the appellate officer may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period orthirty days, if he is satisfied that the appellant wfi3 prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time].
(2) Where an appeal ia preferred under sub section (1), the appellate officer may stay the enforcement ofthe order of the competent authority for such period ana on such conditions as he deems tit.
(3) Every appeal under this section shAll he disposed of hy thB appellate officer as expeditiously as possible.
COMMENTARY APPEAL Appeal is a continuation of original cause - An Appellate Authority is competent to correct an error committed by the lower Authority, without remand ing the case back - The power of remand should be used with groat circumspec tion - Om Parkash and others v. Joint Director Panchayat Punjab 1987 PLJ 273 - 1987( I )PLR674 .
Creature of Statute - Legislature can impose conditions for exercise of euch right - There is no reason why the legislature while granting the right of + Substituted by Chd. Admn. Gat Notification dated 13-3-I97S ttt page 34-35 I. Inserted by Hr. Act No. 47 ftf l<J7d
2.8cu Hr.AulNo. 47 of 1974
3. Substituted vide Chandigarh Administration Ga?,. Nohflefttion tinted 2-4-1991 nt page 339 Haryana Housing Quuid Act, 1971 (as extended to Chandigarh) 5 IS • appeal cannot impose condition for the exercise of 3uch right 30 long as the conditions are not so onerous as to amount to unreasonable restriction rendering the right almost illusory - Setft Nand Lai and another v. State of Haryana and others • AIR 1980 S.C. 2097.
Merger -Appellate hearing is a rehearing of the whole subject matter and when a decree is passed in appeal, the first riftr.rftft merges in the appellate decree - Sadhu Singh v Dharam Dev etc, AIR 1980 S.C 1654.
Pywisr -An appellate Court has the same powers as conferred on the Courts of original jurisdiction - A decree passed by an Appellate Court is deemed to be a fresh decree - Once appeal is filed against the decree the Appellate court has seision of the whole matter - Shrimati Glta Devi v. EC. Haryana 1937 PLJ 265.
Revision - A person who is not a party to an order is not entitled to file a revision against the impugned order - Statu ofHaryana v. Vinod Kumar, 1986 <1) PLR 222 - 1986 PLJ 161 (F.B.). See also 1985 HRR 570, Right of Appeal - It is vested right of litigants which accrues at the date of filing ofeuit- Rightofappeal is governed by law prevailing at rhedate of institu tion of the suit and not at the date of fllins of appeal - Suit. Kurtar Kaur v. State ofHaryana, AIR 1986 (P & H) 99 - 1985 Rev. L,R. 137.
- Right of an appeal is a substantive right- It is not a procedural maiter-ft cannot be restricted in the absence of an express provision to the contrary - Such provision should not be construed narrowly - Kanzhi Ram v. Subcdar Shri Ram etc. AIR 1980 (P&H) 145 : 1980 Rev. L. R. 225 : ILR (19S0) 2 F&l-l 195.
Statutory right - Appeal is a Statutory right - Litigant cannot claim their right unless It is provided in the Slalule - Absence of such right in Statute does not render it unconstitutional - Subedar Munshi Ram and another v. Stato of Haryana - 1979 PLJ (F.B.) 489.
Subsequent events - Appeal Is a rehearing of the case - Appellate Court entitled to take into account subsequent event - Santakh Singh v, Lajja Ram, AIR 1986 (P & II) 34<J - 1986 Rev. L.R. 444.
LIMITATION Acknowledgement - Mortgagee's right - Where the receipts of consid eration ofniorlgage money did not indicate that their makers intended to admit the substr ing mortgagfis and that the right to redeem was subsisting thosii receipts will not amount rn an acknowledgement within the meaning of S. 19 uf (lie Limi tation Act - Bachint Kaur v, Gvrnam Kaur - 1991 ll.R.R. 28.
Cause of action - Time starts from the date when the cause of action first accures - Successive deailassd7 plaintiffs right does not furnish fresh causes of action in view oF Section 58 of Limitation Act - Saudager Singh v. Hamam Kaur, 1987 PLJ 248 - 1 9 8 7 (I) PLR 591.
Condonation - It if. not necessary that a written application u/s 5 or the Act should be necessarily made - Cnnrinnntion of delay can be permitted on oral re quest of the party - Partap Singh v. State of Haryana 1979 PLJ 48 D.B.
Condonation of delay - Where the legal representative? of the deceased respondent has been brought on record earlier too, the appellant connot say that they had no knowledge that the LR's of the deceased appellant were to be brought on a record - Plea of lack of knowledge of period of limitation not accepted - Application for setting aside abatement proceedings after one year alter the death ofthc deceased appellant was dismissed, beingbarred by time - Jai Ram v. .fagat Ram 1991 H.RR. 102.
Extension of time - Presumption - Where the, decree-holder was al lowed to deposit the amount ofsecunty after the due date without extending the 516 Haryana Housing Board Act, ] 971 (as extended to Chandigarh) time - It was held that extension of time is presumed to he allowed even if no application was filed in this regard - Amar Nath Jain v. Ram Parkash Dh/r - 1988 H.R.R- 47.
•—Where the grounds of condonation i,c. negligence of the counsel etc.
were not proved - Hwld, applicant cannot get any relief-Application for condona tion dismissed - The United India Insurance Company v. Svbhash Chander CJupta <md others - 1988 H R R . 297.
—Delay - Allotment of dwelling unit made in 1989 was cancelled against which Wi it petition was filed in 1999 - Petitioner had been making repeated repre sentation regarding patent mistake committed by Housing Flcwim but without any suoceaa Board failed to pay any attention to the repeated requests otflllottce and no decision was convyed - Ohjectinn regarding belated prayer for relief through writ petition cannot be objected to by Board and cannot be allowed to take advan tage of its own mistake and inaction - Smt, Shashi Bala v, Chandigarh Housing Board, 2001 HRR 232 D.B.
Limitation Courts are bound to took into the question of limitation even if no plea is taken by party in this regard - Cannmani Anasuya v. Parvatini Amarendra Chowdhary. 2008(1) HRR 476 PLC Mistake of Court -There is no time limit to correct Court's own mistake - Cliaimaat cannot be penalised for mistake of Court - Kartar Singh v. State of Haryana - 1986 PLJ 206.
Mistaken advise - Litigant bona fide pursuing hie case in wrong court - Time should be excluded - Badlu v Shiv Charm. 1980 PLJ 214 = See also 1987 HRR 28.
Redemption - Acknowledgement - The land, in dispute, was mortgaged by A in favour of B in the year 1921 who sold his mortgagee rights in favour of C in the year 1954 -The 3uit for the redemption was filed in 1973 - Limitation must be deemed to have started from the original mortgagee in the year 1921 and not in the year 1954 - Mohan Singh v. Jogar Singh 1991 H R R . 93.
Time spent for copy - Benefit of day on which judgment is pronounced and time spent fur obtaining copy, should be given under Section 12 (1) and (2) of Ihe Act - Kashmir Singh v. MC. Kamut 1983 PL; 22 - See also 1986 HRR 665.
Void order - Once an aggrieved parly is dispossessed in y icwofa void order - Limitation will start from the date of dispossession and outer limitation is 3 years - State of Punjab v. Gurnam Kaur 1984 PLJ 389.
—When order is not void or without jurisdiction. Article 100 will apply - Kalia and another v. Chandu Lai - 1984 PLJ 360.
—Question of limitation docs not arise where an order is void and without jurisdiction - Sueh orders can be ignored without getting them set aside - Sanvan Kumar v. Shy am Manglu 1989 H.R.R. 641.
Void or nan set order - It is necessary to have such orders set aside • Snr.h cases, arc governed hy Art. 68 and not by Art. 100 of the Limitation Act - Rqfinder Singh v. Gur Charon Singh and others - 1984 P I J 360, —Delay in depositing the security was caused because of the nun holding of the Court by the Presiding Officer being on leave and not because of the judge* ment-debtor - Security was deemed to have been filed within, time - Delay of four days ts condoned - Mukhtiar Singh v. M/s. Pakhar Singh Amir Singh and others- 1988 H.R.R. 583.
—An action for enforcing a right Hied within the period of limitation as fixed by (aw cannot be thrown nut merely on the ground of delay - Dr. M.K. Satpekar v. Sum! Kumar Shamsuttder Chavdharl - 19SS H.R.R. 533.
Haryana Housing Board Act, i 971 (as extended to Chandigarh) 517 r