Civil Revision No.1831 of 2008 (O&M) -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1831 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: July 24, 2009. Sat Narain & Anr. ...Petitioner(s) v. Mohinder Singh & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Baldev Raj Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioners. Shri A.K. Kanwar, Advocate, for respondents No.2 to 6. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): This revision petition is directed against the order dated 23.1.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, Fatehabad whereby the petitioners' application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condoning the delay of 22 days in filing of a civil appeal has been dismissed and as a result thereto, the appeal has also been dismissed being barred by limitation. The petitioners were the plaintiffs before the civil court in a suit for declaration. A counter suit was also filed against them by the defendants. Both the suits were consolidated and dismissed vide judgment and decree Civil Revision No.1831 of 2008 (O&M) -: 2 :- dated 11.3.2005. Both the parties preferred appeals. While the petitioners' appeal has been dismissed being barred by limitation as there was a delay of 22 days in filing thereof, the appeal preferred by the respondents is stated to have been allowed on that count alone. The judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court in favour of the respondents has already been assailed by the petitioners by way of a Regular Second Appeal which is pending in this Court. In the present revision petition, the petitioners challenge the dismissal of their application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. While seeking the condonation of delay, the petitioners have explained that they are quite old persons and one of them is more than 90 years, who used to pursue the litigation but he suffered an asthmatic attack and went to Rajasthan from 7th to 11th April, 2005 for treatment. The said plea has been discarded by the first appellate court only on the ground that on 11.4.2005 he had received a registered post. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, learned counsel for the parties have been heard. It is true that only a vigilant litigant would be entitled to a decision on merits and the court will be reluctant to take away the right accrued in favour of the opposite party. The court, however, needs to have a pragmatic approach and endeavour to decide every lis on merits as far as possible. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are old persons and one of them is more than 90 years of age and old age itself is a disease. The precarious health condition is beyond the control of a litigant and except in a case of concoction, ought to be accepted as a valid ground for the court to Civil Revision No.1831 of 2008 (O&M) -: 3 :- invoke its discretion. The petitioners' version coupled with their age, was sufficient to persuade the court to decide the appeal on merits. Moreover, the delay of 22 days cannot be said to be fatal, or of such a nature that the respondents can claim to have been vested with a legal right. At the best, the respondents could be suitably compensated with costs. For the reasons afore-stated, and in the interest of justice, the revision petition is allowed; the impugned order-cum-judgment dated 23.1.12008 is set aside and while accepting the application filed by the petitioners under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 the matter is remitted to the learned Additional District Judge, Fatehabad to decide the same afresh on merits and in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before the first appellate court on 24.8.2009. The petitioners shall pay costs of Rs.1,000/- to the respondents before the appellate court. Dasti. July 24, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge