R. S. A. No. 594 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 594 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : May 06, 2010 Kamlesh Parsad .... Appellant Vs. State of Punjab and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Rajesh Gupta, Advocate for the applicant-appellant. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : C. M. No. 1668-C of 2010 : This is application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 08 years and 363 days in filing the present appeal. Condonation of the aforesaid delay is sought on the following grounds pleaded in paragraph 2 of the application, which is reproduced hereunder :- “2. That the applicant/appellant had engaged Shri Jagmohan Singh Bhatti advocate for filing appeal in this Hon'ble court in the year 2000 against order dated 29.09.2000. Thereafter the applicant/appellant kept R. S. A. No. 594 of 2010 (O&M) 2 enquiring from the said counsel about the fate of his appeal and every time he was told that his appeal is pending before this Hon'ble Court. But now in the month of October 2009 the said counsel has informed the applicant/appellant that he had not filed any appeal before this Hon'ble Court challenging order dated 29.09.2000 of Addl. Distt. Judge, Ludhiana. Thereafter the applicant/appellant demanded the case papers from the said counsel but he informed that the same had been misplaced.” I have heard learned counsel for the applicant-appellant and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant contended that the applicant-appellant had handed over requisite documents to Mr. Jagmohan Singh Bhatti, Advocate for filing the appeal in the year 2000, but the said Advocate has been telling the applicant-appellant that the appeal had been filed and was pending in this Court, but in October 2009, the said Advocate informed the appellant that the appeal had not been filed. It was accordingly contended that the applicant-appellant should not suffer for the R. S. A. No. 594 of 2010 (O&M) 3 fault of the counsel. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention, but the same cannot be accepted. Delay of almost nine years in filing the appeal cannot be condoned on such specious ground. If such long delay of nine years is condoned without practically there being any explanation, much less satisfactory one, law of limitation would become futile and redundant. This is not permissible. Courts are of course liberal in the matter of condonation of delay. However, there has to be some limit even to the liberal approach of the Courts. The said liberal approach cannot be stretched to an extent so as to make the law of limitation redundant. The vague and general allegation that the Advocate engaged by the appellant earlier misled him in the manner mentioned above, cannot be accepted to condone long and undue delay of almost nine years. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant concedes that the appellant has not made any complaint to the Bar Council for taking action against Mr. Jagmohan Singh Bhatti, Advocate regarding his alleged misconduct, which is pleaded as a ground for condonation of long delay of almost nine years and it would also depict that it is not a valid ground for condonation of such long delay because otherwise, the appellant would have made complaint to the Bar Council for taking action against the said Advocate for such grave misconduct. R. S. A. No. 594 of 2010 (O&M) 4 For the reasons recorded herein above, I find that no sufficient ground is made out for condonation of long and undue delay of 08 years and 363 days in filing the appeal. The application is accordingly dismissed. Main Appeal : The appeal is dismissed as time barred. May 06, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE