C.R.No.3580 of 2009 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.3580 of 2009 Date of Order: 3.10.2011 M/s Ajay Iron Trading Company and others .....Petitioners Vs. State Bank of India, Dharuhera .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. B.S. Rana, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate for the respondent. JASWANT SINGH, J (ORAL) By filing the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, petitioners-defendants have prayed for setting aside the order dated 1.4.2009(P.2) passed by Ld. Additional District Judge, Rewari whereby appeal filed by them against the order dated 25.10.2007 (P.1) passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Rewari dismissing their application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was dismissed. Petitioner No.1-M/s Ajay Iron Trading Company is a Proprietorship Firm of petitioner No.2-Smt Shakuntla Devi. Respondent- State Bank of India, Dharuhera Branch (for short “the Bank”) filed a Civil suit No.255 dated 7.11.1988 for recovery of Rs.40,275.65/- against petitioner Nos.1 & 2 as also petitioner No.3-Simarjit Singh, who was a guarantor. Said suit was decreed ex parte vide judgment and decree dated 18.3.1996. All the petitioners on 28.9.1996 filed an application under C.R.No.3580 of 2009 #2# Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree on the ground that purportedly they were never served. Learned trial Court after framing issues and evaluating the evidence vide order dated 25.10.2007 dismissed the application. Against the said dismissal order, petitioners filed a Civil Appeal on 7.1.2008 along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of 37 days delay in filing the appeal. Learned Additional District Judge, Rewari/Appellate Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay vide order dated 1.4.2009, hence the present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 1.4.2009 (P.2). Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the delay of 37 days had occurred in view of the fact that their counsel Sh. R.P. Mudgil had not promptly informed the petitioners regarding the order dated 25.10.2007. It is only when the petitioners approached him for inquiring in respect of their case that they came to know on 3.1.2008 about the said order dated 25.10.2007. Soon thereafter the petitioners filed appeal along with application on 7.1.2008 by changing their counsel. It is, thus, contended that the petitioners had shown sufficient cause for condonation of the delay and hence the order dated 1.4.2009 is liable to be quashed and the appeal be heard on merits. In support, learned counsel cites a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu v. Gobardhan Sao 2002(2) RCR (Civil) 337. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has fully supported the reasons given by the Appellate Court. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the paper book, I find substance in the plea raised on behalf of the petitioners. C.R.No.3580 of 2009 #3# In Ram Nath Sao's case (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the term “Sufficient Cause” in Section 5 of Limitation Act must receive liberal construction in order to advance the cause of substantial justice. It was held that if the action of the party is bonafide i.e he is not negligent or grossly careless, the valuable right of the party should not be defeated since the endeavour of the Court is to decide the lis on merits. In the present case, I find that the delay is not of such a magnitude from which an inference could be drawn that the petitioners were guilty of gross negligence or inaction. In my opinion, the assertion of the petitioners that their earlier counsel had failed to promptly inform them about passing of the order dated 25.10.2007 appears to be correct since soon after coming to know, they filed an appeal by changing their counsel. In fact, in the cited case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has acknowledged the practice of the parties of not being expected to be in touch with their counsel on every date of hearing in view of the long standing pendency of the disputes/their cases in the courts. Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, I find that this is a fit case where the petitioners' prayer for condonation of delay should have been entertained and their appeal heard on merits. It is well settled that the litigant cannot be denied a decision on merits by adopting a hyper technical approach unless he is guilty of lack of bonafides or grossly negligent & careless. In view of the aforesaid discussion, present revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 1.4.2009 (P.2) is set aside subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as costs to the respondent-Bank. Taking into account the long pending dispute between the parties and the sufficient cause shown C.R.No.3580 of 2009 #4# for filing the delay, I further condone the delay of 37 days in filing the appeal and direct the learned Appellate Court to restore the appeal & decide the same on merits expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the receipt of certified copy of this order. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Appellate Court on 17.11.2011. October 03, 2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE