IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.2865 of 2009 Date of decision : 28.10.2009 Smt.Parveen Mehta … Petitioner Versus Balwinder Kaur and others …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Roshan Lal Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Anil Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 6. A.N.Jindal, J. (Oral) The petitioner (respondent in appeal) has challenged the order dated 16.1.2009 passed by Additional District Judge Jalandhar allowing the application for condonation of delay. The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order stating that the delay in filing the appeal being gross one, could not be condoned. Counsel has further argued that the present appeal has been filed intentionally at belated stage in order to gain time and application is liable to be dismissed where as counsel for the respondents while explaining the delay has pleaded for deciding the appeal on merits. The Law relating to condonation of delay may be strict one so as to explain every days delay sufficiently but it also takes due cause of injustice; perversity of the judgment; principle of audi alterm parterm; meritorious claims should not go unheard; illegal judgments may not cause prejudice and plea of limitation be not remain part of the record and innocent persons may not suffer due to the technicalities. In Vedabal @ Vallavantabi Baburao Patil Vs. Shantaram Baburao Patil & Ors. 2001 Supreme Appeals Reporter (Civil) 617, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that in exercising discretion under the CR No.2865 of 2009 provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, Courts should adopt a pragmatic approach a distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of few days. Whereas in the former case the consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a relevant factor so the case calls for a more cautious approach but in the latter case no such consideration may arise and such a case deserves liberal approach. No hard and fast rule can be laid down in this regard. The court has to exercise the discretion on the facts of each case keeping in mind that in construing expression “sufficient cause” the principle of advancing substantial justice is of prima importance. In Rattan Singh V/s Vijay Singh, 2001 (1) RCR (Civil) 495 (SC), liberal and broad based construction and not a rigid or narrow interpretation of the provisions of Limitation Act have been advised to be followed. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held further in N Balakrishnan Vs. M.Krishnamurthy 1992 (2) RCR 578 that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned but that alone is not enough to turn down his prayer and to shut the door against him. The Apex Court further held:- “The primary function of a court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice. The time limit fixed for approaching the court in different situations is not because on the expiry of such time a good cause would transform into a bad cause …..xx…. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics. But seek their remedy promptly. xxxxxxxx A court knows that refusal to condone delay would result in for closing a suit or from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate.” 2 CR No.2865 of 2009 Further in case Gulab Singh Vs. Jawala Singh and others 2006 (2) Civil Court Cases 546 (P&H) our Hon’ble HighCourt has held that where there is nothing on the record to show that by delay in filing the appeal the petitioner has to gain anything the delay is liable to be condoned and this High Court condoned the delay of 9 months in filing the appeal. Similarly in case Lal Singh and others versus State of Haryana 2002(3) PLR 584 (P&H) our Hon’ble High Court has held that every legal remedy must be kept alive for legislatively fixed period of time. It has been laid down that the lapses on the part of the litigant alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him. It has been held that if the explanation does not smack of malafide or it is not put forth as part of dilatory strategy the court must show utmost consideration to the suitor and in this case delay of 9 years was condoned. Similarly in case Harbans Singh versus Punjab National Bank 2003(1) PLR 99 (P&H), it was observed that where litigant is going to gain nothing by filing appeal at a belated stage, unless and until malafide and bad intention is attributed to him mere filing of the appeal at belated stage will not dis-entitle him to get his appeal decided on merits. While looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, the respondents have been able to explain the delay properly in filing the appeal. First Appellate Court appears to have taken the right view while condoning the delay. The appeal involving immaterial issues should not be thrown into the dustbin unheard. Resultantly, finding no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed. [ A.N.Jindal ] Judge 28.10.2009 sd 3