CM-4257-CII-2026 CR-6207-2025 (O&M) Sr. No.120 BHARAT SHARMA JAINENDRA GURUKUL AND CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN Present: Ms. Vibha Nagar, Advocate for the Mr. Adarsh Jain, Senior Advocate with Ms. Kamaldeep Kaur, Advocate for the respondents. HARPREET KAUR CM-4257-CII 1. In view of the averments made in the application, the same is allowed. 2. The date of hearing of the main case is preponed from 06.05.2026 and the same is taken on board for hearing today itself. 3. CM stands Main case 4. Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 18.07.2025 (Annexure P whereby, the application filed by the respondent under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 2026 in/and (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM-4257 CR-6207 Date of decision: 20 BHARAT SHARMA versus JAINENDRA GURUKUL AND OTHERS HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN Ms. Vibha Nagar, Advocate for the applicant-petitioner. Mr. Adarsh Jain, Senior Advocate with Ms. Kamaldeep Kaur, Advocate for the respondents. HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN, J. (ORAL) CII-2026 In view of the averments made in the application, the same is The date of hearing of the main case is preponed from 06.05.2026 and the same is taken on board for hearing today itself. CM stands disposed of. Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 18.07.2025 (Annexure P-1), passed by the learned District Judge, Panchkula, whereby, the application filed by the respondent under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was allowed and delay of 1162 days was condoned. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 4257-CII-2026 in/and 6207-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 20th March 2026 .....…Petitioner ........Respondents HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN Mr. Adarsh Jain, Senior Advocate with JEEWAN, J. (ORAL) In view of the averments made in the application, the same is The date of hearing of the main case is preponed from 06.05.2026 and the same is taken on board for hearing today itself. Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 1), passed by the learned District Judge, Panchkula, whereby, the application filed by the respondent under Section 5 of the was allowed and delay of 1162 days was condoned. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA In view of the averments made in the application, the same is The date of hearing of the main case is preponed from Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 1), passed by the learned District Judge, Panchkula, whereby, the application filed by the respondent under Section 5 of the PARITOSH KUMAR 2026.03.27 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this Judicial Record/Decree/Document CM-4257-CII-2026 CR-6207-2025 (O&M) 5. As per the brief facts, the respondent earlier approached this Court by way of filing CWP dated 14.03.2024 (Annexure P remedy of appeal available to the petitioner. 5.1. Thereafter, t dated 22.02.2021 with the said appeal, an application seeking condonation of delay The said application was allowed Judge, Panchkula, subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/ disputed that the cost amounting to Rs.10,000/ petitioner vide o Panchkula. 6. By way of filing the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order condoned by District Judge, Panchkula. 7. I have heard paperbook. 8. The petitioner had civil writ petition which was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy vide order dated 14.3.2024 (Annexure P 9. Thereafter, the petitioner has availed the remedy of an appeal and along with the appeal The delay was though for a period of 1162 days but it has been condoned only with the conditional order of paym 2026 in/and (O&M) 2 As per the brief facts, the respondent earlier approached this Court by way of filing CWP-12773-2023, which was dismissed vide order dated 14.03.2024 (Annexure P-3),observing that there is a statutory a remedy of appeal available to the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent filed an appeal against the order dated 22.02.2021, passed under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. Along with the said appeal, an application seeking condonation of delay The said application was allowed vide order dated 18.7.2025 Judge, Panchkula, subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/ disputed that the cost amounting to Rs.10,000/ petitioner vide order dated 10.09.2025, passed by the District Judge, By way of filing the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order whereby the delay in filing the appeal was condoned by District Judge, Panchkula. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the The petitioner had wrongly availed remedy by way of filing a civil writ petition which was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy vide order dated 14.3.2024 (Annexure P Thereafter, the petitioner has availed the remedy of an appeal and along with the appeal, an application for condonation of delay was filed. The delay was though for a period of 1162 days but it has been condoned only with the conditional order of payment of costs of As per the brief facts, the respondent earlier approached this 2023, which was dismissed vide order 3),observing that there is a statutory alternate he respondent filed an appeal against the order passed under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. Along with the said appeal, an application seeking condonation of delay was filed. vide order dated 18.7.2025 by the District Judge, Panchkula, subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/-. This fact is not disputed that the cost amounting to Rs.10,000/- has been accepted by the rder dated 10.09.2025, passed by the District Judge, By way of filing the present petition, the petitioner has whereby the delay in filing the appeal was the counsel for the parties and perused the wrongly availed remedy by way of filing a civil writ petition which was dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy vide order dated 14.3.2024 (Annexure P-3). Thereafter, the petitioner has availed the remedy of an appeal , an application for condonation of delay was filed. The delay was though for a period of 1162 days but it has been condoned ent of costs of 10,000/-. As per the brief facts, the respondent earlier approached this 2023, which was dismissed vide order lternate he respondent filed an appeal against the order passed under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. Along was filed. by the District . This fact is not has been accepted by the rder dated 10.09.2025, passed by the District Judge, By way of filing the present petition, the petitioner has whereby the delay in filing the appeal was the counsel for the parties and perused the wrongly availed remedy by way of filing a of Thereafter, the petitioner has availed the remedy of an appeal , an application for condonation of delay was filed. The delay was though for a period of 1162 days but it has been condoned PARITOSH KUMAR 2026.03.27 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this Judicial Record/Decree/Document CM-4257-CII-2026 CR-6207-2025 (O&M) 10. Today, counsel for the respondents has informed that the petitioner has accepted the costs before the Appellate Court i.e. District Judge, Panchkula and this fact has been noted in the order dated 10.9.2025 passed by the s is taken on record as place. 11. While deciding Constitution of India Standard Brands Limited v. Paras Ram and others passed in CR order is not maintainable where the costs have been accepte conditional impugned order. The observations of the Court are as under : “xxxxxx Admittedly, it has been recorded in order dated 06.12.2011 passed by the trial Court that the costs amount has been paid by the plaintiff. In view thereof, the impugned order is not maintainable. xxxxxx” 12. In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove and the ratio of the aforesaid order, the present since costs have been accepted by the petitioner. 13. Consequently, the present civil revision stands 14. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. 20th March 2026 Simran/Paritosh Kumar Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 2026 in/and (O&M) 3 Today, counsel for the respondents has informed that the petitioner has accepted the costs before the Appellate Court i.e. District Judge, Panchkula and this fact has been noted in the order dated 10.9.2025 passed by the said Court. Copy of the order is submitted in the Court which is taken on record as Annexure-C. Registry to tag While deciding the revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court observed that in a matter Standard Brands Limited v. Paras Ram and others passed in CR-90-2012 that the revision petition to challenge the impugned order is not maintainable where the costs have been accepte impugned order. The observations of the Court are as under : “xxxxxx Admittedly, it has been recorded in order dated 06.12.2011 passed by the trial Court that the costs amount has been paid by the plaintiff. In view thereof, the instant revision petition to challenge the impugned order is not maintainable. xxxxxx” In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove and the ratio of the aforesaid order, the present since costs have been accepted by the petitioner. Consequently, the present civil revision stands Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. (HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN) March 2026 /Paritosh Kumar Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether reportable : Today, counsel for the respondents has informed that the petitioner has accepted the costs before the Appellate Court i.e. District Judge, Panchkula and this fact has been noted in the order dated 10.9.2025 aid Court. Copy of the order is submitted in the Court which . Registry to tag the same at the appropriate petition under Article 227 of the , this Court observed that in a matter titled as “M/s Standard Brands Limited v. Paras Ram and others”decided on 30.8.2013 revision petition to challenge the impugned order is not maintainable where the costs have been accepted in terms of the impugned order. The observations of the Court are as under : - Admittedly, it has been recorded in order dated 06.12.2011 passed by the trial Court that the costs amount has been paid by the the instant revision petition to challenge the impugned order is not maintainable. In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove and the ratio of the aforesaid order, the present petition is not maintainable since costs have been accepted by the petitioner. Consequently, the present civil revision stands dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. (HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No Today, counsel for the respondents has informed that the petitioner has accepted the costs before the Appellate Court i.e. District Judge, Panchkula and this fact has been noted in the order dated 10.9.2025 aid Court. Copy of the order is submitted in the Court which at the appropriate petition under Article 227 of the M/s decided on 30.8.2013 revision petition to challenge the impugned the passed by the trial Court that the costs amount has been paid by the the instant revision petition to challenge In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove is not maintainable PARITOSH KUMAR 2026.03.27 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this Judicial Record/Decree/Document