Civil Revision No. 3601 of 2010 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3601 of 2010 Date of decision : 26.5.2010 HUDA and another ....Petitioners Versus Banwari Lal and another ......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Siddharth Batra, Advocate for the petitioners. S. D. ANAND, J. The petitioners (HUDA and Estate Officer, HUDA, Bhiwani) filed an appeal in the Court of learned District Judge, Bhiwani, to challenge the validity of judgment and decree dated 16.12.1996. Along therewith, a plea was also filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 11-1/2 years in filing of the appeal. The plea was negatived by the learned Appellate Court by observing that the petitioners had not been able to prove on record that the counsel representing them did not intimate the decision rendered by the learned Trial Court. In that context, it was noticed that even the affidavit of the learned counsel representing the petitioners before the Trial Court had not been produced. The learned Appellate Court also noticed that even after the factum of the impugned judgment and decree had come to their notice on 27.1.2007, they had taken a period of two years and five months to Civil Revision No. 3601 of 2010 -2- **** apply for issuance of certified copy. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners is not in a position to aver that there is any factual inaccuracy in the facts noticed by the learned Appellate Court. It is apparent, from a perusal of the record, that the petitioners filed an appeal in the Court of learned Appellate Court after delay of 11-1/2 years. On their own showing, the factum of impugned judgment and decree had come to their notice on 27.1.2007. Even thereafter, the petitioners had taken about two years and five months to apply for the issuance of a certified copy. The law would be inclined to show little bit of indulgence in favour of the institutional litigation because the exercise is, by the very nature of things, impersonal in character. None the less, there is no warrant for the proposition that any extraordinary indulgence can be shown in the matter of institutional litigation. The grant of that indulgence is not conceptualized by the Limitation Act. In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. May 26, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE Civil Revision No. 3601 of 2010 -3- ****