Civil Revision No.6088 of 2006 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6088 of 2006 Date of Decision: March 10, 2008 Market Committee, Pipli and another ...Petitioners VERSUS M/s Des Raj Mukand Lal & Company ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Ravinder Malik, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.V.K.Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr.Prashant Vashist, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. This order will dispose of three Civil Revision Petition Nos.6088 of 2006 (Market Committee, Pipli and another v. M/s Des Raj Mukand Lal & Company), 6089 of 2006 (Market Committee, Pipli and another v. M/s Jai Pal & Company) and 6090 of 2006 (Market Committee, Pipli and another v. M/s Sat Narain Sanjay Kumar & Civil Revision No.6088 of 2006 : 2 : Company). The facts are being taken from Civil Revision No.6088 of 2006. The appeal filed by the petitioners has been dismissed on the ground that it was filed with a delay of 42 days. While dismissing the appeal, application for condonation of delay, which was filed along with the appeal, has also been dismissed. The reasons given in the application seeking condonation of delay are that the judgment and decree was applied for and was prepared and available on 23.2.2006. The judgment in this case was passed on 31.1.2006, which came to the information of the petitioner on 17.2.2006. It is then pleaded that there is complete legal channel, which has to be gone through for filing or non-filing of the appeal in the matter which requires time. It is thereafter mentioned that once the decision was taken to file the appeal, the same was immediately filed. Mr.V.K.Jain, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent would point out that the reasons given in the application are not valid for which the appeal could not be filed in time. He further submits that the reasons, as mentioned in the application, if up-held would mean that two different standards are required to be applied in respect of Government and the private litigants. Indeed this has been so held by the Appellate Court while declining the application for condonation of delay. Mr.Jain has also referred to the case of P.K.Ramachandran Versus State of Kerala and another, (1997) 7 Supreme Court Cases 556. In para 6 of the judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- “Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so Civil Revision No.6088 of 2006 : 3 : prescribes and the courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The discretion exercised by the High court was, thus, neither proper nor judicious. The order condoning the delay cannot be sustained. This appeal, therefore, succeeds and the impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay filed in the High Court would stand rejected and the miscellaneous first appeal shall stand dismissed as barred by by time. No costs.” It is, however, to be noticed that the delay in the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was for 565 days in filing the first appeal. It is also true that equity cannot be a ground for extending the period of limitation. The petitioners were better advice to give some valid and appropriate particulars in the application while seeking condonation of delay. The reasons advanced by the petitioners to seek condonation of delay should have explained in more details explaining each day delay. Government department can be given some allowance for dealing with the case. This, however, would not be a justified ground to condone any unreasonable delay. Delay in this case is of 42 days. This cannot be termed as un- reasonable. The petitioners would deserve atleast one once chance to have their adjudication on merits. I would, thus, accept this revision petition. The impugned order is accordingly set-aside. The case is remanded back to the Lower Appellate court which shall consider the appeal on merits and decide the same in accordance with law. Parties, through their counsel are directed to appear before the Lower Appellate Court on Civil Revision No.6088 of 2006 : 4 : 24.3.2008. The court would see the feasibility of deciding the appeal within a period of six months from the date of the receipt of certified copy of this order. March 10, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE