In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh CM No. 25946-CII of 2008 and Civil Revision No. 3530 of 2004 Date of decision: March 30, 2009 Union of India and others .. Petitioners Vs. Udai Vir Gupta and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: None for Union of India. Mr. Vishal Garg, Advocate for the respondents A.N. Jindal, J It is often seen that none appears in this court on behalf of Union of India, therefore, I am left with no option but decide the case with the assistance of the learned counsel for the respondent. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 4.3.2004 passed by the learned additional District Judge, Bathinda, dismissing the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The judgment in this case was passed on 22.2.2000 and the certified copy of the judgment was applied on 1.3.2000 and the same was delivered on 27.3.2000. The appeal was preferred in the court on 19.11.2000. The plea set up by the petitioner is that the certified copy of the judgment and decree was misplaced, as a result of which delay occured. It was only in the first week of September, 2001, when the certified copy of the judgment and decree was found during the search of some other documents. Thereafter, it took sometime to procure the other connected documents, which were delivered to the petitioner on 28.9.2001. Thereafter, the brief was handed over to Mr. Mithu Ram Gupta, Advocate Additional Standing Counsel for Union of India on 11.10.2001, who preferred the appeal on 19.11.2001. The trial court while observing that there were no sufficient grounds to condone the delay, dismissed application . Civil Revision No. 3530 of 2004 -2- *** Heard. At the motion stage, this Court issued notice of motion while observing as under :- “....... Mr. Guglani, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that the petitioner is not aggrieved against the release of the FDRs lying deposited in the Bank but it is primarily aggrieved against the entitlement of Uday Veer Gupta as a contractor in place of respondent No.2. It is prayed that proper procedure has to be followed before enlisting a contractor.......” From the perusal of the order, one thing is very much clear that though delay occured due to the misplacing of the judgment and the advocate also took time for procuring the certified copies of the other documents, therefore, it cannot be said to be intentional delay. The petitioners were not to be benefited by filing delayed appeal. The lis involves a huge amount, therefore, the appellate court ought to have adjudicated the lis after hearing both the parties. At the same time, the court while condoning the delay should have liberal approach. Every day delay need not to be explained. That apart, in view of the goodwill gesture shown by the Union of India, vide order dated 29.7.2004, they have no objection to the release of the FDRs, there should have been no difficulty in adjudicating the issue. As such, it is observed that there are sufficient grounds to condone the delay. Resultantly, I accept the petition, set aside the impugned order and restore the appeal while directing that the FDRs lying deposited in the Punjab National Bank, Bathinda would be released to the respondent subject to furnishing adequate security for restitution in case the appeal is decided against them. The respondents are directed to appear before the Appellate Court on 30.4.2009. Union of India be informed accordingly. March 30, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge