C.M. No. 5920-C of 2009 and 1 R.S.A. No. 2001 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.M. No. 5920-C of 2009 and R.S.A. No. 2001 of 2009 Date of decision: 15-5-2009 HUDA & another … Applicant -appellants versus Amar Nath Jindal and another … Respondents CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Ms. Preeti Khurana, Advocate, for the applicant-appellants. … ARVIND KUMAR, J: The present appellants were the defendants in the suit for declaration filed by plaintiff Amar Nath Jindal. The suit was dismissed. However, the appeal of the plaintiff was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 21.2.2007. The present appeal has been filed on 2.5.2009. Along with the appeal, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has also been filed and the delay of about 700 days in filing the instant regular second appeal has been sought to be condoned. The ground taken is that no notice of the appeal before the first appellate Court was received in the office of the appellants nor any intimation was received through from their counsel Shri R.S.Badhran, Advocate. It has been stated that the information regarding judgment and decree dated 21.2.2007 passed by the first appellate Court was received in the office of the appellant-department only in the month of August, 2007, whereafter a letter dated 21.8.2007 was written to Shri R.S.Badhran, Advocate, in regard to the said appeal and to supply certified copy of judgment and decree dated 21.2.2007. However, no information was supplied by the said counsel and further, that the file C.M. No. 5920-C of 2009 and 2 R.S.A. No. 2001 of 2009 relating to the court-case too could not be processed till the receipt of notice in May 2008 from the Court in the execution filed by the plaintiff for compliance of judgment and decree dated 21.2.2007 of the first appellate Court. Thereafter, explanation of the counsel was called for in regard to filing of appeal by him without any engagement in his favour. It has been then submitted that the matter was brought to the notice of the higher Authorities and thereafter, the case was sent to the Legal Cell of the appellant along with explanation of the counsel and then it was decided to file regular second appeal in this Court. The explanation, referred to above, is not worth of any credence. Even if the explanation put forth by the appellant that the counsel on behalf of the appellant-department did not co-ordinate with them and did not inform them about the fate of the appeal is taken to be correct, then also in view of their own stand as taken in para 4 of the application that they attained knowledge of the judgment and decree dated 21.2.2007 in the month of August, 2007, i.e. after about five months, the casual approach on their part is writ large as thereafter also they continued to remain silent for almost about 1½ year and did not take any concrete steps to prefer an appeal. Thus, it was incumbent upon the department to know about the status of the case(s) which they had been pursuing; rather it reflects on the casual approach of the Department in which the matters pending in the Courts are dealt with. It has also been the endeavour of this Court to hear the parties on merits, but in the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellant has been negligent and callous throughout. Although the Hon'ble Supreme Court has recommended that a pedantic approach should not be made in the matter, but in the cases where there is huge delay, such a discretion cannot be exercised as it would become mockery of law of limitation. No person should be allowed to take undue advantage of such a concession. The Courts should also not lose sight of the fact that by not taking steps within the time prescribed, a valuable right accrued to the other party gets defeated. In the case of P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala and another, (1997) 7 Supreme Court Cases 556, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:- “ The law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party C.M. No. 5920-C of 2009 and 3 R.S.A. No. 2001 of 2009 but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes and the courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The discretion exercised by the High Court was, thus, neither proper nor judicious. The order condoning the delay cannot be sustained. This appeal, therefore, succeeds and the impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay filed in the High Court would stand rejected and the miscellaneous first appeal shall stand dismissed as barred by time.” Thus, there being no plausible explanation, this Court finds no justification for condoning the delay of about two years years in filing the instant appeal as it would be unfair to the defendant-respondent to re-open the settled issue once again. Accordingly, the instant application as well as the appeal stand dismissed. ( ARVIND KUMAR ) May 15, 2009 JUDGE JS