C.M.No.14175-C of 2011 in RSA No.4864 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.M.No.14175-C of 2011 in RSA No.4864 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: December 9, 2011 Mohan Lal .....Appellant v. Jagdish Chander .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.NPS Mann, Advocate for the appellant. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 15.1.2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Nawanshahr, dismissing appeal filed by present appellant-defendant against judgment and decree dated 19.10.2007 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Nawanshahr, decreeing the suit filed by respondent- plaintiff. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned Courts below. Briefly stated, respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of agreement dated 21.12.2001 by directing the defendant to execute a valid sale deed in favour of plaintiff in respect of the shop and court yard in dispute. On notice being issued, suit was contested by present appellant- defendant. He denied execution of agreement and receipt of earnest money. C.M.No.14175-C of 2011 in RSA No.4864 of 2011(O&M) -2- On appreciation of evidence adduced by both the parties, suit filed by respondent-plaintiff was decreed by learned trial Court. Appeal filed by present appellant against the said judgment and decree was dismissed by learned first appellate Court, i.e., learned Additional District Judge, Nawanshahr. The present appeal has not been filed within prescribed period of limitation. There is delay of 967 days in filing the present appeal. The appeal is accompanied by an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. Ground taken for condonation of delay in the application is that appellant being poor person could not arrange the money for paying court fee and fee of the counsel and hence, there is delay. In a recent judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and another, 2010(2) RCR(Civil) 284, law on the point of condonation of delay in filing the appeal has been summed up as under:- “8. We have considered the respective submissions. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The legislature does not prescribe limitation with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. To put it differently, the law of limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed for redress of the legal injury. At the same time, the courts are C.M.No.14175-C of 2011 in RSA No.4864 of 2011(O&M) -3- bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is shown for not availing the remedy within the stipulated time. The expression "sufficient cause" employed in Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 and similar other statutes is elastic enough to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub serves the ends of justice. Although, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in dealing with the applications for condonation of delay, this Court has justifiably advocated adoption of a liberal approach in condoning the delay of short duration and a stricter approach where the delay is inordinate - Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 2 SCC 107, N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy 1999(2) RCR (Civil) 578: (1998) 7 SCC 123 and Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil 2001(3) RCR(Civil) 831: (2001) 9 SCC 106. In dealing with the applications for condonation of delay filed on behalf of the State and its agencies/instrumentalities this Court has, while emphasizing that same yardstick should be applied for deciding the applications for condonation of delay filed by private individuals and the State, observed that certain amount of latitude is not impermissible in the latter case because the State represents collective cause of the community and the decisions are taken by the officers/agencies at a slow pace and encumbered process of pushing the files from table to table consumes considerable time causing delay - G. Ramegowda v. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer 1988(1) RRR 555: (1988) 2 C.M.No.14175-C of 2011 in RSA No.4864 of 2011(O&M) -4- SCC 142, State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani 1996(2) RRR 82: (1996) 3 SCC 132, State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra 1996 (2) SCT 712: (1996) 9 SCC 309, State of Bihar v. Ratan Lal Sahu (1996) 10 SCC 635, State of Nagaland v. Lipok Ao 200;5:(2) RCR Criminal 414: 2005(2): RCR (Civil) 375: 2005 (2) Apex Criminal 75: (2005) 3 SCC 752, and State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ahmed Jaan 2008(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 119: 2008(4) RCR(Civil) 126: 2008(4) SCT 25: 2008(2) RCR (Rent) 234: 2008(5) RAJ 214: (2008) 14 SCC 582.” In view of this legal proposition, Court is bestowed with power to condone the delay in filing the appeal, if sufficient cause is shown for not filing the same within the stipulated period. No straight jacket formula can be laid down in dealing with the application for condonation of delay. However, Hon'ble Apex Court in various judgments held that liberal approach should be adopted by the Courts in condoning the delay of short duration and a stricter approach where the delay is inordinate. In this case, there is delay of 967 days in filing he appeal, which cannot be said to be of shorter duration. Ground taken that there were financial constraints to pay the court fee and fee of the counsel cannot be said to be a sufficient ground to condone the delay of 967 days. Hence, taking into consideration the facts of the case, no ground, what to talk of sufficient ground, is made out for condonation of delay of 967 days in filing the present regular second appeal. Hence, the application for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal is, hereby, dismissed. As a consequence thereof, the present regular second appeal is C.M.No.14175-C of 2011 in RSA No.4864 of 2011(O&M) -5- also dismissed as having not been filed within the prescribed period of limitation. 9.12.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge