C.R. No.7337 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.7337 of 2009 Date of decision:11.12.2009 The Executive Engineer, PSEB and others .......Petitioners versus Gansham Lal ....Respondent Coram:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Ms. Madhu Dayal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sunil Garg, Advocate for Mr. Munish Garg, Advocate for respondent. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Notice of motion. Mr. Sunil Garg, Advocate for Mr. Munish Garg, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent-caveator. This is revision petition by defendants. Suit filed by plaintiff-respondent was decreed by trial Court i.e learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ropar vide judgment and decree dated 23.05.2008 (Annexure P-1). The defendants (petitioners herein) preferred appeal against the judgment and decree, but there was delay of 58 days in filing the said appeal. Accordingly application was moved for condoning the said delay. Learned Lower Appellate Court i.e learned District Judge, Ropar vide judgment dated 03.06.2009 (Annexure P-2) dismissed the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and consequently dismissed the appeal as time barred. Feeling aggrieved the defendants have filed the C.R. No.7337 of 2009 -2- instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for respondent vehemently contended that each day's delay has to be explained by the petitioners, but it was not so done and, therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment of the appellate Court. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of W.B. Versus The Administrator, Howrah Municipality and others, etc., AIR 1972 Supreme Court 749. The contention has been countered by learned counsel for the petitioners by submitting that Government and private parties cannot be put on same footing in such matters, in view of peculiar characteristic of functioning of Government offices and, therefore, pragmatic approach is required, as observed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Nagaland versus Lipok AO and others, AIR 2005 Supreme Court 2191. In that case, delay of 57 days in filing the appeal against acquittal of accused was condoned and leave to appeal granted. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. The concept that delay of each day has to be condoned stands diluted with passage of time. The Courts are adopting somewhat liberal approach in matter of condonation of delay. It is particularly so in the case of State or agency of the State. In the instant case, the defendants are Punjab State Electricity Board and its officers. Delay C.R. No.7337 of 2009 -3- of 58 days in filing the appeal before the lower Appellate Court was not a huge or long delay. Keeping in view the latest legal proposition, the said delay of less than two months should have been condoned by the lower Appellate Court on payment of costs. In view of the aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed and impugned judgment dated 03.06.2009 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned District Judge, Ropar is set aside and delay of 58 days in filing the appeal by the petitioner before the learned District Judge, Ropar is condoned, subject to payment of Rs.2000/- as costs. Appeal shall stand restored to the files of learned District Judge, Ropar on payment of costs and shall thereupon be decided on merits in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before learned District Judge, Ropar on 27.01.2010. Learned District Judge, Ropar shall dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible and preferably within six months from the said date of hearing. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 11.12.2009. A.Kaundal