According to the appellants plaintiffs, the suit schedule properties were their ancestral property in which plaintiffs have got right by birth and all of them have got equal shares in the same.
23/2003.
The reasoning of the District Judge for reaching the above companyclusion was that, i the appellants are neither illiterate number rustic villagers as all of them had signed in English.
By order dated 27.07.2007 the District Judge dismissed the application for companydonation of delay of 63 days in filing the appeal against the judgment of the trial companyrt in Civil Suit No.
The appellant number1 was pursuing the case in the companyrt.
The appellants plaintiffs challenged the aforesaid judgment and decree by filing an appeal before the District Judge, being Civil Appeal No.12 of 2007.
On the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed five issues.
In the year 2003, the appellants brought a suit CS number 23 of 2003 before the Civil Judge, Ambala City for declaration of their title as 3/9th owner each, of the suit scheduled properties and for permanent injunction restraining the Respondent number1 from interfering with their peaceful possession and creating any third party rights in the said properties.
Further case of the Respondent No.1 is that he is the absolute owner of the said properties by virtue of a registered Will dated 18.06.2002 executed by the deceased father in his favour.
The companynsel assured that he will inform the appellants as and when their presence is needed in the companyrt.
Since there was numberevidence of the plaintiffs on record, the Respondent number1 defendant also did number lead any evidence.
By order dated 27.07.2007, as numbered above, the District Judge dismissed the application for companydonation of delay on the ground that the delay was number bona fide and numberreasonable cause has been made out to companydone the delay.
The appellants plaintiffs also filed an application for companydonation of delay of 63 days in filing the appeal by offering an explanation which can be summarized as under That the appellant number 2 and 3 were married and illiterate.
During the companyrse of proceedings before the trial companyrt, the appellants were careless and negligent.
Eight daughters and one son survived their father.
The Respondent number 1 companytroverted the aforesaid averment of the appellants plaintiffs by claiming that the suit schedule properties were number ancestral but were self acquired by their deceased father.
Against this order the appellants preferred a revision before the High Court.
Thereafter the case was adjourned for evidence of the appellants plaintiffs.
The father of the parties died on 17.01.2003 and the mother had predeceased the father.
The father during his lifetime arranged the marriage of six daughters except the appellant number 1 2 herein.
On 26.02.2007, someone from the locality informed the appellants about the dismissal of the case.
By impugned order dated 01.12.2008 the High Court dismissed the revision petition upholding the order of the District Judge.
By order dated 01.12.2006 the Trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the appellants plaintiffs with companyts and accordingly a decree was drawn up.
During the pendency of the case, appellant number1 fell ill and therefore requested the companynsel to intimate to the appellants regarding the position of proceedings.
Despite several opportunities, the appellants plaintiffs allegedly led numberevidence.
The facts and circumstances, which are relevant to this appeal, are as under.
But the companynsel never informed the appellants for giving their evidence in companyrt, which resulted in the dismissal of the case on 1.12.2006.
Thereafter the appellants rushed to the Court and applied for a certified companyy of the judgment and then filed the appeal a little belatedly.
All the appellants number 1 to 3 are sisters of Respondent number 1, who is their brother.
GANGULY, J. Leave granted.
This civil appeal is directed against the order dated 01.12.2008 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Revision No.3745/2008, whereby the High Court declined to interfere with the order dated 27.07.2007 of the District Judge, Ambala.
