RSA No.414 of 1987 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No.414 of 1987 Date of Decision: 14 - 7 - 2011 Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala ....Appellants and others v. Dr.Pawan Thapar ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.G.S.Sandhawalia, Advocate for the appellants. None for the respondent. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the Punjab State Electricity Board – defendant to the suit. Plaintiff-respondent instituted a suit for permanent injunction praying that Punjab State Electricity Board-defendant be restrained from recovering Rs.53,473.97 Paise from the plaintiff-respondent in respect of electricity connection No.NK-I/616. A further prayer was made that electricity connection of the plaintiff be not disconnected for non payment. The suit was decreed. Aggrieved against the same, the present appellants had filed an appeal before the lower Appellate Court. There was a delay in filing of the appeal. The last date for filing the appeal was 27.4.1984. In RSA No.414 of 1987 [2] the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay, it was stated that appeal was to be filed upto 27.4.1984. However, since there was a curfew in Moga town, therefore, the appeal could only be filed on 5.5.1984. A prayer was made that delay of 7 days in filing the appeal from 28.4.1984 to 4.5.1984 be condoned. It is apparent that there is a delay of 7 days in filing the appeal. The lower Appellate court has taken a very harsh view in not condoning the delay. Counsel for the appellants has stated that it is a common knowledge that in 1984, Punjab was passing through very disturbed conditions and curfew was imposed on and off. Even otherwise, the appellant-Electricity Board is an instrumentality of the State. Normally delay occurs in seeking sanction and permission from the concerned quarters. In these circumstances, the delay of 7 days in filing the appeal before the lower Appellate Court is condoned. The impugned order dated 11.9.1986 is set aside. The case is remanded back to the lower Appellate Court. Since nobody has caused appearance for the respondent, the lower Appellate Court shall issue notice to the plaintiff-respondent to secure his presence and after hearing the parties, the appeal shall be decided on merits. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal stands disposed of. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) July 14, 2011. JUDGE RC