RSA No. 3362 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 3362 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 09.05.2011 State of Punjab and others ... Appellants Versus R.S.Khatra ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L.N.MITTAL Present: Mr. Vivek Chauhan, AAG, Punjab for the appellants. Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the respondent. **** L.N.MITTAL, J (ORAL). CM No. 10373-C of 2009 This is application by appellants for condonation of delay of 789 days in filing the appeal. It is alleged in the application that after copy of judgment and decree dated 26.03.2007 of the lower appellate court was sent by District Attorney vide memo dated 18.04.2007 to the Director (Prosecution and Litigation), the latter vide memo dated 10.05.2007 opined that the case is fit for filing second appeal and the opinion was sent to office of Advocate General, Punjab. However, Advocate General, Punjab vide letter dated 31.05.2007 opined that case is not fit for filing second appeal. Accordingly, appellant-defendant No. 2 Director General of Police vide memo dated 18.06.2007 sought opinion of State of Punjab-defendant- appellant No. 1 (Home Department) as to whether the judgment of the lower appellate court was to be implemented. State Government vide memo dated 17.07.2007 directed that regular second appeal be filed. However, RSA No. 3362 of 2009 (O&M) -2- appellant-defendant No. 2 vide memo dated 26.07.2007 requested the Home Department to re-examine the case. After various reminders, State Government vide memo dated 12.11.2007 intimated that the case had been re-examined in the light of opinion of Advocate General, Punjab and it had been decided not to file second appeal and decided to take action as per judgment of the trial court. Thereupon, defendant-appellant No. 4 was requested to implement the judgment and decree of the trial court (as affirmed by the lower appellate court). Appellant No. 4 requested defendant-appellant No. 1 to issue specific order regarding pay protection of plaintiff-respondent after getting approval of Finance Department. Large number of reminders were issued. Thereafter, appellant no. 1 vide memo dated 10.07.2009 asked appellant No. 2 to file regular second appeal and accordingly, this appeal was filed on 05.09.2009. I have heared learned counsel for the parties and perused the case. Learned counsel for the applicants-appellants retreated the averments made in the application. Learned counsel for non-applicant- respondent vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellants for condonation of long delay of 789 days in filing the appeal. I have carefully considered the contentions. Appellant No. 1 vide memo dated 17.07.2007 directed filing of second appeal. However, again, appellant No. 1 vide letter dated 12.11.2007 directed that second appeal was not to be filed and the judgement of trial court be implemented. There is nothing on record to depict as to what trasnspired thereafter to prompt the State Government- appellant No. 1 to decide to file second appeal as conveyed vide letter dated 10.07.2009. In the meanwhile, large number of letters were written by RSA No. 3362 of 2009 (O&M) -3- appellant No. 4 to appellant No. 1 to take steps for implementation of the judgment of the trial court. It is, thus, manifest that even if averments of the appellants as pleaded in the application are taken at their face value, no ground much less sufficient ground for condonation of long delay of almost 2 years and 2 months is made out. It appears that while appellant No. 4 was pressing appellant No. 1 to pass necessary orders to implement the judgment of the trial court, appellant No. 1 after receiving several reminders from appellant No. 4 spread over a long period decided to file the appeal just to avoid implementation of the judgment of the trial court. On the contrary, earlier, conscious decision had been taken not to file second appeal and to implement the judgment of the trial court. If such long delay is condoned on non-existing ground, the law of limitation would become completely futile. It would amount to repeal of the law of limitation which cannot be done by judicial order. It is correct that courts are liberal in condoning the delay and more latitude is shown to the State in such matters. However, in the instant case, the delay is very long and the averments made in the application, even if they are taken at face value, do not make out any ground for condoning the aforesaid long delay. For the reasons aforesaid, I find that the application under disposal is not only meritless, but is completely frivolous. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. RSA No. 3362 of 2009 Appeal is dismissed as time-barred. RSA No. 3362 of 2009 (O&M) -4- CM No. 10374-C-2009 and CM No. 12450-C-2010 Both the stay applications are disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. (L.N.MITTAL) JUDGE May 09, 2011 divyanshi