IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.M. No. 3009-C of 2009 and R.S.A. No. 1034 of 2009 Date of decision: 5-3-2009 U.H.B.V.N.Ltd and another … Applicant -appellants versus H.M.M. Coaches Ltd. … Respondent THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate, for the applicant-appellants. … ARVIND KUMAR, J: The present appeal, which is by the defendants, has been preferred against the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby suit of the plaintiffs for declaration with consequential relief of mandatory injunction has been decreed. Along with the appeal, an application seeking condonation of delay of 621 days in filing the appeal has been filed merely on the ground that Shri Kartar Singh, dealing-hand, who had been pursuing the appeal before the Courts below, retired from service in July, 2007 and did not intimate the status of the case to his successor or any other higher official. Moreover, due to some communication gap between Shri Kartar Singh and Shri D.S.Danipur, Advocate, the certified copy of judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge could not be submitted to the higher Authorities and as such, the same was never made available to the office of the appellant-Nigam. It has been stated that it is only on receipt of summons for execution in the above-said case that it was revealed that the said judgment and decree of the first appellate Court was not available on the office file and as such, certified copy of the same was applied for on 19.1.2009 whereafter the case was sent to the office of Legal Remembrancer, Panchkula, on 19.1.2009 and the approval for filing Regular Second Appeal in this Court was received on 21.1.2009. But it cannot be said to be a plausible explanation for not filing the appeal within C.M. No. 3009-C of 2009 and -2- R.S.A. No. 1034 of 2009 limitation. If the dealing hand of the appellant-Nigam was to retire, then at the time of his retirement he should have been asked to hand over the complete charge to his successor and to bring to his knowledge the fate of the court cases. Thus, it was incumbent upon the appellant-Nigam to know about the status of the case(s) which the department had been pursuing; rather it reflects on the casual approach of the Department in which the matters pending in the Courts are dealt with. It has also been the endeavour of this Court to hear the parties on merits, but in the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellant has been negligent and callous throughout. Although the Hon'ble Supreme Court has recommended that a pedantic approach should not be made in the matter, but in the cases where there is huge delay, such a discretion cannot be exercised as it would become mockery of law of limitation. No person should be allowed to take undue advantage of such a concession. The Courts should also not lose sight of the fact that by not taking steps within the time prescribed, a valuable right accrued to the other party gets defeated. In the case of P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala and another, (1997) 7 Supreme Court Cases 556, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:- “ The law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes and the courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The discretion exercised by the High Court was, thus, neither proper nor judicious. The order condoning the delay cannot be sustained. This appeal, therefore, succeeds and the impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay filed in the High Court would stand rejected and the miscellaneous first appeal shall stand dismissed as barred by time.” Thus, there being no plausible explanation, this Court finds no justification for condoning the delay of more than 1½ year in filing the instant appeal as it would be unfair to the defendant-respondent to re-open C.M. No. 3009-C of 2009 and -3- R.S.A. No. 1034 of 2009 the settled issue once again. Accordingly, the instant application as well as the appeal stand dismissed. ( ARVIND KUMAR ) March 5, 2009 JUDGE JS