C.R. No. 791 of 2011 [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 791 of 2011 Date of Decision: Nov. 22,2011 Om Parkash and another ............................ Appellants Versus Virender Singh and another ................... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. N.S.Shekhawat, Advocate for the respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr.N.G.Sharma, Advocate for performa respondent. ... RITU BAHRI, J. This is a Civil Revision against the judgment dated 20.1.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Sirsa, whereby the appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 25.2.2004 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Dabwali, has been dismissed on the ground of delay. The suit for permanent injunction was dismissed C.R. No. 791 of 2011 [ 2 ] by the trial Court on 25.2.2004. The appellants filed an application for the certified copy of the judgment on 27.2.2004. The judgment was ready for delivery on 28.2.2004 but the appellants received the copy on 16.3.2004 and the appeal was filed on 16.4.2004. There was a delay of 20 days in filing the appeal before the lower Appellate Court. The appellant Om Parkash and his son Sanjay were in custody while facing conviction in a murder case. Appellant No.2-Smt. Shakuntla being a lady was not in a position to file the appeal in time. The delay is not intentional and was beyond the control of the appellants. Mr. N.S.Shekhawat, counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2, has vehemently argued that on the date when the certified copy was ready the appellants were not in judicial custody. They were released on emergency parole on 12.2.2004 upto 27.7.2004. No ground is available with the Appellate Court to condone the delay. Heard counsel for the parties. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Harbans Singh v. Punjab National Bank and others 2003(1) The Punjab Law Reporter 99 has held that a litigant would not gain any thing by filing an appeal at a belated stage and there should be a liberal approach in applying the law of limitation. In State of Punjab v. Ex.Constable Swaran Singh 2003 (1) The Punjab Law Reporter 211 the expression 'sufficient cause' within C.R. No. 791 of 2011 [ 3 ] the meaning of Section 5 of the Act or Order 22 Rule 9 of the Code or any other similar provision should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fides is imputable to a party. The Supreme Court in Ram Nath Sao alias Ram Nath and others v. Gobardhan Sao and another (2002) 3 SCC 195 has held that a strict interpretation which would defeat the ends of justice does not need to be followed. The observations of their Lordships read as under:- “Acceptance of explanation furnished should be the rule and refusal, an exception, more so when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fides, can be imputed to the defaulting party. On the other hand, while considering the matter the courts should not lose sight of the fact that by not taking steps within the time prescribed a valuable right has accrued to the other party which should not be lightly defeated by condoning delay in a routine-like manner. However, by taking a pedantic and hypertechnical view of the matter the explanation furnished should not be rejected when stakes are high and/or arguable points of facts and law are involved in the case, causing enormous loss and irreparable injury to the party against whom the lis terminates, either by default C.R. No. 791 of 2011 [ 4 ] or inaction and defeatng valuable right of such a party to have the decision on merit. While considering the matter, courts have to strike a balance between resultant effect of the order it is going to pass upon the parties either way.” The Civil Revision is allowed. The judgment dated 20.1.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Sirsa, is set aside and the delay of 20 days in filing the appeal before the lower Appellate Court is condoned. The matter is sent back to the Appellate Court to decide the appeal of the appellants/plaintiffs on merit. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Appellate Court on 15.12.2011. 22.11.2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Rupi JUDGE