IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. No.13252-CII of 2006 and FAO No. 3011 of 2006 Date of decision:- 29.07.2009. Paramjit Kaur and others ...Appellants Versus Mukhtiar Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present:- Mrs. Kiran Bala Jain, Advocate for the appellants. None for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3. Mr. Pardeep Goyal, Advocate for respondent No.5. A.N.JINDAL J. Assailed in this appeal is the award dated 23.12.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala whereby claim petition was dismissed. This appeal is accompanied by an application for condonation of delay of 833 days in filing the appeal. The grounds set out in the application are that the appellant Nos.1 to 3 are household and illiterate ladies and there is no male member in their family to pursue the case, as such the delay occurred. Heard. The claimants had been pursuing the case in the court of Tribunal at Ambala and they well knew about the procedure and manner for prosecution of the case, which was dismissed and thereafter they did not file any appeal. It is stated that they did not come to know about the filing of C.M. No.13252-CII of 2006 and FAO No. 3011 of 2006 -2- the appeal for three years. Counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on the judgments Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another v. Mst. Katiji and others AIR 1987 Supreme Court 1353, Girdhari Lal v. Radhey Shyam and others Vol.CIV-(1993-2) PLR 109 (P & H) and Manju Devi and others v. Gopal Copy Wale and Ors. Vol.III (2002) ACC 279 (P & H). Having gone through the judgments referred to above, the same are not applicable to the facts of the present case. No doubt, the Court should be liberal in condoning the delay in filing the appeal if there are sufficient grounds for doing the same but it is also settled by now that the delay for years in filing the lis should not be condoned as a matter of routine just to please the litigants. Condoning such long delays would amount to completely wiping out the law of limitation and also would sent wrong signals to the society that any stable litigation could be entertained by the Courts at any time on flimsy grounds. Finding no sufficient grounds to condone the delay, the application is dismissed. Resultantly, appeal also fails. July 29, 2009 (A.N.JINDAL) vj JUDGE