CM No.5174-C of 2010 in 1 R.S.A.No. 1709 of 2010(O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh CM No.5174-C of 2010 in R.S.A.No. 1709 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision: 23.5.2011 Kamlesh Rani Kamboj and another ......Appellants Versus Kamlesh Khera .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.J.P.Sharma, Advocate, for the applicant-appellants. Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for respondent **** SABINA, J. Vide this order, application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal will be disposed of. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellants has submitted that the delay in filing the appeal was neither intentional nor deliberate. The applicant-appellants did not have enough funds to file the appeal and after arranging for the court fee, the present appeal has been filed. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the CM No.5174-C of 2010 in 2 R.S.A.No. 1709 of 2010(O&M) opinion that the present application deserves dismissal. The Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another vs. Mst. Matiji and others, AIR 1987 Supreme Court, 1353 had held as under:- 1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 3. “Every day's delay must be explained” does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. 4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. 5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of malafides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious CM No.5174-C of 2010 in 3 R.S.A.No. 1709 of 2010(O&M) risk. 6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.” In the present case, plaintiff Kamlesh Khera had filed a suit for recovery of ` 95,000/-. The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 18.1.2006. In appeal, filed by the plaintiff, the Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 25.8.2006 decreed the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of ` 83,000/- along with interest. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the applicant-appellants preferred a review application. However, the review application filed by the applicant-appellants was dismissed vide order dated 24.9.2007. Against the said order, applicant-appellants filed Civil Revision No.933 of 2008 and the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 14.2.2008 with liberty to the applicant-appellants to file a regular second appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court. However, the applicant-appellants filed the present appeal after more than two years. The explanation given by the applicant-appellants that they did not have the requisite court fee fails to inspire confidence. I am conscious of the fact that a liberal approach is required to be adopted while dealing with an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal but the applicants-appellants are expected to have acted with due diligence. However, in the CM No.5174-C of 2010 in 4 R.S.A.No. 1709 of 2010(O&M) present case, the delay in filing the appeal cannot be said to be bonafide and rather appears to be intentional. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed being time barred. (SABINA) JUDGE May 23, 2011 anita