CR No. 428 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No. 428 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 08.03.2011. Pirthi Singh @ Prithvi Singh and another .......Petitioners Vs. Bhagwan Dass and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Ankur Bansal, Advocate for Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioners. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for possession. Vide judgment and decree dated 20.3.2009, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karnal decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendants preferred an appeal along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Vide impugned order dated 1.11.2010, Additional District Judge, Karnal allowed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Hence, the present petition by the plaintiffs No. 1 and 2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal. The Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, CR No. 428 of 2011 (O&M) -2- Anantnag and another vs. Mst. Katiji and others, AIR 1987 Supreme Court, 1353 had held as under:- 1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 3. “Every day's delay must be explained” does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. 4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. 5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of malafides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. 6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected CR No. 428 of 2011 (O&M) -3- not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.” In the present case, the suit filed by the petitioners was decreed on 20.3.2009. The defendants applied for the certified copies of the judgment and decree on 1.5.2009, which were supplied on 22.5.2009. The defendants handed over the papers to the counsel at Chandigarh for filing a revision petition, as per legal advise given to them. However, the counsel at Chandigarh returned the papers to the defendants with the advise that an appeal was maintainable. Thus, the delay in filing the appeal could not be said to be intentional or deliberate. In these circumstances, learned Additional District Judge, Karnal had rightly allowed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Moreover, now the appeal would be decided on merits. Hence, no ground for interference is made out. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE March 08, 2011 Gurpreet