Civil Revision No. 3527 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3527 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 14.10.2009 Gurpiar Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. A.S. Syan, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) CM No. 14654-CII of 2009 Allowed. The applicant-petitioner is exempted from filing typed copes of judgment/decree dated 27.3.2008 (P-1) and order dated 3.3.2009, as the certified copies are legible. CM No. 14655-CII of 2009 CM is allowed. Annexure P-1 is taken on record. CR No. 3527 of 2009 This revision petition is directed against the order dated 3.3.2009 passed by the learned District Judge, Bathinda, vide which the application moved by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the appeal, was ordered to be dismissed. The petitioner filed a suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendant-respondents to hold an inquiry regarding supply of official documents concerning the plaintiff to M/s Britannia Industries Ltd., in a Civil Revision No. 3527 of 2009 (O&M) -2- case filed by the petitioner in Consumer Court against the company. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit by holding that the plaintiff could not disclose the name of the person who had supplied the official papers to M/s Britannia Industries Ltd.. The petitioner preferred an appeal after expiry of period of limitation, along with an application for condonation of delay of 193 days in filing the appeal. The ground on which the condonation of delay was sought was, that the plaintiff/petitioner was not aware of the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, as he was under mental tension due to his frequent transfer, and could not contact his counsel. The learned District Judge on material placed on record, recorded a finding, that the copy of the judgment and decree was applied immediately after the decision, and that the judgment and decree was passed in present of the counsel representing the petitioner. The learned Court held, that no affidavit of the counsel was filed in support of assertion that he was not informed about the decision of the case. The learned Court further found as a fact, that the documents placed on record did not show that the petitioner was under mental tension, as except for placing on record the copy of the order passed by this Court staying his transfer, no other document was placed on record. The learned Court, thus, found that no sufficient cause was made out for condoning the delay. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner challenged the impugned order by placing reliance on the judgment of Civil Revision No. 3527 of 2009 (O&M) -3- this Court in Gulab Singh Vs. Jawala Singh and others, 2006(2) Civil Court Cases 546, wherein this Court was pleased to condone the delay of 9 months in filing the appeal, in view of the fact, that the petitioner in the said case had come to know about the dismissal of the suit after 9 months and thereafter applied for copy of the judgment. The Court further held, that there was nothing on record to show that by delay the filing of the appeal, the petitioner was to gain anything. Reliance by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of this Court in Gulab Singh Vs. Jawala Singh and others (supra) is misplaced. It is not in dispute, that in the present case, the copy was immediately applied and nothing was placed on record in support of his averments, that he was under mental tension or that the counsel had not informed him about the decision of the case. The judgment, therefore, has no application to the facts of the present case. The learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter placed reliance on the judgment of this Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Esbee Inds. Corpn. Vs. M/s Buck Systems Int. Ltd., 2001(2) Apex Court Journal 5, wherein the delay of 161 days was condoned on account of forgetfulness of the party. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was again on the facts of the case, and has no application to the facts of present case. It is well settled law, that the Limitation Act is to be applied with all its rigors and the delay in filing the appeal cannot be condoned merely on the asking, though the “sufficient cause” under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is to be liberally construed. In the present case, it would be seen that the plea of the Civil Revision No. 3527 of 2009 (O&M) -4- petitioner, that he was under mental tension due to frequent transfer, was per se not admissible, as the order of his transfer was stayed by this Court on 23.4.2008, whereas appeal was filed in July, 2008 i.e. after delay of 193 days. The petitioner further failed to show that he had no intimation about the judgment and decree. In absence of affidavit by the counsel, specially when it was proved on record that the judgment and decree was immediately applied, it could not be said that he had no knowledge. The order passed by the learned District Judge, therefore, does not suffer from any illegality or can be said to be perverse, which may call for interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge October 14, 2009 R.S.