C.R. No.7149 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.7149 of 2009 Date of Decision: 09.02.2010 Jai Singh Sahad .……Petitioner Versus General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Rohtak and others ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Suraj Mal Kundu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Narender Singh, DAG, Haryana for respondents. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) This is revision by plaintiff Jai Singh Sahad under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 03.09.2009 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak. Petitioner filed suit against the respondents. Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 08.12.2004 (Annexure P-1) decreed the suit of the plaintiff. However, respondents/defendants preferred appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak vide judgment and decree dated 11.06.2005 (Annexure P-2) allowed the said appeal ex parte. The petitioner-plaintiff moved application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, C.P.C) for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 11.06.2005 passed by the lower Appellate Court. The said application was barred by limitation and, therefore, application was also moved for C.R. No.7149 of 2009 -2- condoning delay in filing the said application. Learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak vide impugned order dated 03.09.2009 (Annexure P-3) dismissed the petitioner’s application for condonation of delay in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C and also consequently dismissed the application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has peferred the instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. The case of the petitioner is that he learnt of the ex parte judgment and decree dated 11.06.2005 passed by the lower Appellate Court on 20.10.2007 in execution proceeding. Thereafter he applied for certified copies, which were received on 31.10.2007. The application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C could be moved within 30 days thereof, but was moved on 08.01.2008 i.e after further delay of almost 40 days. It was alleged that the petitioner could not move application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C due to pressure of work. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the delay in filing application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C before the lower Appellate court may be condoned on payment of costs because the delay was of about 40 days only. The prayer has been opposed by learned State counsel contending that no sufficient ground was shown by the petitioner for condonation of delay. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. It is correct that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause for condonation of delay. However, Courts adopt liberal approach in condoning the delay, provided the delay is not very long and undue. C.R. No.7149 of 2009 -3- In the instant case, the delay was of 40 days only. The ends of justice would be met if the said delay is condoned on payment of costs. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the instant revision petition is allowed and impugned order dated 03.09.2009 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak is set aside and application moved by the petitioner before the lower Appellate Court for condonation of delay in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C is allowed and the said delay is condoned, subject to payment of Rs.2000/- as costs precedent. The lower Appellate Court shall now proceed to decide the petitioner’s application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C in accordance with law. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 09.02.2010 A. Kaundal