C.R. No. 780 of 2006 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 780 of 2006 Date of Decision : 25.8.2009 Punjab State & another .......... Petitioners Versus Sulakhan Singh ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. R.L. Gupta, Addl. A.G. Punjab. None for the respondent. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 19.10.2005, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Gurdaspur dismissing application moved by the petitioner for condoning the delay of 11 months in filing the appeal. The grounds on which the petitioner sought condonation of delay in filing the appeal reads as under :- “It is averred that suit titled as Sulakhan Singh Vs. Punjab State was decided by the court of Sh. Jasbir Singh, Civil Judge, Junior Division Gurdaspur on 9.9.2000. The certified copy of judgment and decree were delivered on 28.9.2000. The office of the District Attorney, Gurdaspur, opined that it was not a fit case for filing appeal and the comments were sent to the Director C.R. No. 780 of 2006 2 Prosecution and litigation. Thereafter, the Director prosecution and Litigation Punjab vide letter dated 19.10.2000 informed the Secretary to Govt. of Punjab, Department of Technical Education & Industrial Training, Chandigarh that the case was not fit for filing in appeal. The said opinion was sent along with copy of judgment and decree and it was also informed that period of limitation for filing the appeal was to expire on 26.10.2000. The principal Secretary, Technical Education & Industrial Training Department, Punjab Chandigarh after perusing copy of judgment and decree as well as relevant documents sent back reference to the Director Prosecution and Litigation with the request to file an appeal vide memo dated 21.09.2001. The Director Prosecution and Litigation then sent a letter to District Attorney Gurdaspur and thereafter, the instant appeal was filed on 3.10.2001. It is further averred that delay in filing the appeal was not intentional but due to lengthy process.” The reading of the grounds set up by the petitioners for condoning the delay, would show that the authorities were well aware, that the period of limitation for filing the appeal was to expire on 26.10.2000, whereas they took their own time of 11 months in taking decision for filing of appeal that too against the advice given by the District Attorney that the case was not fit for filing appeal. The learned lower appellate Court, therefore, was justified in holding that no sufficient cause was shown for condoning the delay of 11 C.R. No. 780 of 2006 3 months in filing the appeal. The order passed by the learned appellate Court does not suffer from any illegality which may call for interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. No merit. Dismissed. 25.8.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE