IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 513 of 1998 DATE OF DECISION : 21.10.2009 Kadhu and others .... PETITIONERS Versus Kuljiwan ..... RESPONDENT CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate, for the respondent. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The defendants have filed the instant revision petition against the order dated 21.8.1997, passed by the appellate court, whereby application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 27.7.1996, passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Anandpur Sahib, was dismissed and consequently, the appeal was dismissed being barred by limitation. In the present case, the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants-respondents from interfering in his peaceful possession as owner of the suit land, measuring CR No. 513 of 1998 -2- 11 Marlas, situated in village Bhanupali, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib. Vide judgment and decree dated 27.7.1996, the said suit was decreed. It was found that the plaintiff-respondent was owner in possession of the suit land. Against the said judgment and decree, the defendants-petitioners filed appeal on 21.1.1997 with an application for condonation of delay. The delay was of about 5 months. In the application, it was stated that defendants- petitioners were illiterate persons and when defendant-petitioner No.1 approached his Advocate for preparing the appeal, his counsel asked that he should bring all his brothers, though defendant-petitioner No.1 was having power of attorney in his favour, and in that process, the delay had occurred. The said application was dismissed by the appellate court and consequently, the appeal was also dismissed being barred by limitation. I have heard counsel for the parties. Undisputedly, in this case, the judgment was pronounced by the trial court on 27.7.1996. Copy of the judgment and decree was applied on the same day. It was prepared on 14.8.1996 and delivered on 10.9.1996. The appeal was filed on 21.1.1997. Thus, the delay of near about five months occurred in filing the appeal. In my opinion, the first appellate court has dismissed the application while taking a hypertechnical view in the matter. Undisputedly, the petitioners are illiterate persons residing in the rural area. The possibility cannot be ruled out that the delay in filing the appeal has occurred due to the wrong advise of the counsel. In the facts of the case, no negligence can be imputed to the petitioners. In Ram Nath Sao Versus CR No. 513 of 1998 -3- Gobardhan Sao, AIR 2002 SC 1201, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the expression “sufficient cause” within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fides is imputable to a party. It is further held that whether a particular explanation given constitutes sufficient cause or not depends upon the facts and circumstances of that case. There cannot be a straitjacket formula for accepting or rejecting explanation. However, courts should not proceed with the tendency of finding fault with the cause shown and reject the petition by a slipshod order in over-jubilation of disposal drive. It has been held that acceptance of explanation furnished should be the rule and refusal, an exception, more so when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fides can be imputed to the defaulting party. In the instant case also, no negligence or inaction or want of bona fides on the part of the petitioners has been alleged. Thus, in my opinion, the order passed by the first appellate court rejecting the prayer of the petitioners for condoning the delay of about 5 months is liable to be set aside. However, the respondent-plaintiff can be compensated by costs. In view of the above, this revision petition is allowed subject to payment of Rs. 1,000/- as costs, to be paid by the petitioners-defendants to the respondent-plaintiff and the impugned order is set aside and the delay in filing the appeal before the first appellate court is condoned. The appellate court is directed to decide the appeal on merits within six months from the CR No. 513 of 1998 -4- date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Both the parties are directed to appear before the first appellate court on December 08, 2009. October 21, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE