C.R. No. 4941 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 4941 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision: 24.08.2009 Abhey Kumar Chawla ...Petitioner Vs. Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. & Ors. ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma Present: Mr.J.S.Bhatia, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Aman Chaudhary, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 & 2. --- Vinod K.Sharma,J. CM No.18662-CII of 2007 Allowed. The petitioner is exempted from filing certified copy of judgment of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division). CR No.4941 of 2007 This revision petition is directed against order dated 30.7.2007 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, dismissing an application moved by the petitioner under section 5 of the Limitation Act C.R. No. 4941 of 2007 2 for condoning delay of 7 days in filing the appeal. The respondent/plaintiffs field a suit for recovery of Rs.1,71,545/- on account of loss due to excessive replacement of gunny bags and interest thereon. Suit was decreed. With the appeal the petitioner filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act (for short the Act) on the plea that the copy was prepared on 23.3.2005 but for want of intimation he could collect the same only on 30.3.2005. The case set up was that it was on account of difference in date of preparation and delivery there was error of calculation of period of limitation. Learned Additional District Judge did not accept the application on the ground that it was for the petitioner to have enquired about the preparation of copy. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that 'sufficient cause' is to be given liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. In absence of grave negligence, inaction or want of bona fide, the delay should have been condoned. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Major Singh Vs. Balwant Singh and others, 2006 (3) RCR (Civil) 810. The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Chandra Mani and others, (1996) 3 SCC 132, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to lay down as under:- “11. Section 5 of the Limitation Act gives power to the Court C.R. No. 4941 of 2007 3 to admit the appeal or application after the prescribed period. The Supreme Court generally adopts a liberal approach in condonation of delay finding somewhat sufficient cause to decide the appeal on merits. When the Sate is an applicant, praying for condonation of delay, it is common knowledge that on account of impersonal machinery and the inherited bureaucratic methodology imbued with the note-making, file- pushing and passing-on-the-buck ethos, delay on the part of the State is less difficult to understand though more difficult to approve, but the sate represents collective cause of the community. Decisions are taken by officers/agencies proverbially at slow pace and encumbered process of pushing the files from table to table and keeping it on table for considerable time causing delay – intentional or otherwise – is a routine. Considerable delay of procedural red-tape in the process of their making decision is a common feature. Therefore, certain amount of latitude is not impermissible. If the appeals brought by the state are lost for such default no person is individually affected by what in the ultimate analysis suffers, is public interest. The expression”sufficient cause” should, therefore, be considered with pragmatism in justice- oriented approach rather than the technical detection of sufficient cause for explaining every day's delaying. The factors which are peculiar to and characteristic of the functioning of the governmental conditions would be cognizant C.R. No. 4941 of 2007 4 to and requires adoption of pragmatic approach in justice- oriented process. The court should decide the matter on merits unless the case is hopelessly without merit. No separate standard to determine the cause laid by the Sate vis-a-vis private litigant could be laid to prove strict standards of sufficient cause. Litigants including the sate are accorded the same treatment and the law is administered in an even-handed manner.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Nagaland Vs. Lipok AO and others, (2005) 3 SCC 752, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to lay down as under:- “.........Expression sufficient cause should be considered with pragmatism in a justice-oriented approach rather than the technical detection of sufficient cause for explaining every day's delay – Having regard to considerable delay of procedural red tape in the decision making process of the Govt., certain amount of latitude is permissible – The Sate is an impersonal machinery working through its officers or servants – Hence, it cannot be put on the same footing as an individual – Public interest suffers if appeals by the Sate are lost because of such default – Court to decide the maters on merits unless the case is hopelessly without merit – state should constitute legal cells to examine whether cases involve legal principles for decision by court or require adjustment at governmental level – Officer C.R. No. 4941 of 2007 5 concerned should be made personally responsible for the delay in filing the appeal. On facts, delay of 57 days in filing the application for grant of leave made in terms of S.378(3) Cr.PC. Held, deserved condonation -Criminal Procedure Code 1973 S.378(3).” The delay is only of 7 days. The petitioner was not to gain anything by filing the appeal late, but would have got the appeal decided on merit. The ground pleaded made out a sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Consequently, this revision is allowed. Impugned order is set aside and the application moved by the petitioner for condonation of delay is allowed. The learned lower appellate court is directed to dispose of the appeal on merits in accordance with law. (Vinod K.Sharma) 24.08.2009 Judge rp