R. S. A. No. 1509 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 1509 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : April 08, 2010 Bani Singh .... Appellant Vs. State of Haryana and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Baljinder Singh, Advocate for the appellant. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : C. M. No. 4505-C of 2010 : This is application by appellant filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay of 438 days in filing the appeal. It is alleged in the application that suit filed by the plaintiff- appellant was decreed by the trial court on 10.12.2007, but first appeal preferred by defendants-respondents was allowed by learned District Judge, Jind vide judgment and decree dated 13.10.2008. However, appellant's counsel did not inform the appellant regarding decision of the appeal. When the appellant approached his counsel in the lower appellate court on 24.04.2009, only then the appellant was informed that appeal preferred by the respondents herein had been allowed. The appellant applied for certified copies of judgment and decree dated 13.10.2008 and the same were R. S. A. No. 1509 of 2010 (O&M) 2 supplied to him on 25.04.2009. The appellant then contacted his counsel in the lower court to get all the documents of the case, but the counsel mistakenly placed the documents in some other brief and ultimately, the documents were given to the appellant on 23.03.2010 only and thereupon the instant appeal was filed on 25.03.2010. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant-appellant and perused the case file. The grounds mentioned in the application for condonation of long delay of more than one year and two months, as noticed herein above, are no ground to condone such long delay. It was the duty of the appellant to remain in touch with his counsel in the lower appellate court to know the status and fate of the first appeal preferred by the defendants and it was not duty of the counsel to keep informing the appellant about the status and fate of the first appeal. Moreover, even after coming to know of the decision of first appeal on 24.04.2009, the appellant took another eleven months to file the instant second appeal and the only explanation for the same is that for eleven long months, his counsel in the lower court did not supply him the documents related to the case. This explanation cannot be accepted. Even if the documents had been put by the counsel in some other brief, as alleged in the application, copies of the documents could be obtained from the files of the courts below. It is correct that Courts adopt liberal approach in matters of condonation of delay. However, at the same time, the liberal approach cannot be stretched to such an extent as to render the law of limitation completely redundant and infructuous. If long delay of more than one year and two months in filing the appeal is condoned on such specious grounds, as mentioned in the application under disposal, it would make mockery of the law of limitation. This cannot be permitted. For the reasons recorded herein above, I find that there is no sufficient ground for condoning the long delay of more than one year and R. S. A. No. 1509 of 2010 (O&M) 3 two months in filing the appeal. The application is accordingly dismissed. Main Appeal : The appeal is dismissed as time barred. April 08, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE