IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 3976 of 2011 Date of Decision: 8.9.2011. Partap Singh Saini --Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. S.S. Walia, Advocate for the petitioner. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) This revision is directed against the order dated 8.3.2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hisar rejecting an appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 8.4.2010 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Hisar dismissing the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the civil suit for declaration. Petitioner filed a civil suit challenging the adverse entries in his A.C.Rs recorded in the year 2003. He was prematurely retired vide order dated 29.4.2003. This order was challenged in the High Court. The High Court stayed the order of premature retirement on 18.7.2003. This petition remained pending till the filing of the suit by the plaintiff in the civil court. It seems that when the plaintiff withdrew the writ petition, he was relieved from service on 14.2.2006. The order of relieving was challenged by filing the suit on 23.11.2009. Along with the suit the plaintiff filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the suit as admittedly the suit was beyond 3 years, the prescribed period of limitation. The trial court i.e the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Hisar C.R. No. 3976 of 2011 -2- dismissed the application holding that Section 5 has no application for condoning the delay in filing the suit as it is applicable for condoning the delay in filing the application and appeal. The trial court also observed that the petitioner is also not entitled to the benefit of Section 6 of the Limitation Act as the disability envisaged under Section 6 relates to minors and persons of unsound mind and not in any other case. The trial court, though, granted benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act for excluding the period of limitation to the extent the petitioner was pursuing the writ petition and even after excluding the period utilized by the petitioner in pursuing the writ petition, the suit has been found to be beyond limitation. Order of the trial court was challenged by the petitioner before the learned Addl. District Judge, Hisar, who dismissed the appeal affirming the order of the trial court. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the orders impugned. The facts are admitted on record. The suit of the plaintiff was beyond limitation. Trial court after granting benefit of Section 14 held the suit to be beyond limitation which fact too is not disputed. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that since the petitioner was unwell, he is entitled to seek condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Section 5 of Limitation Act reads as under:- “ Extension of prescribed period in certain cases-any appeal or any application other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application with such record.” It is a settled law that this section is not attracted for condonation of delay in filing the suit. Both the courts below have rightly C.R. No. 3976 of 2011 -3- dismissed the suit of the plaintiff having been filed beyond limitation. Where the suit/application or appeal is filed beyond limitation, Section 3 of the Limitation Act operates. There is no other provision for condonation in filing the suit. No interference is warranted. Petition dismissed. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 8.9.2011. lucky