IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular First Appeal No. 939 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: August 10, 2011. Ram Kishan @Ramu and others. ...... APPELLANT (s) Versus The State of Haryana and another. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. N.D.Achint, Advocate for the applicants-appellants. Mr. K.C.Bhatia, Addl.A.G., Haryana. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) CM Nos.1880-81 C of 2010 Heard. There is inordinate delay of 899 days in filing and 549 days in refiling the present appeal. The total delay comes to 1448 days. Only ground taken by applicant-appellant for condonation of this inordinate delay in filing the present regular first appeal is that RFA No.939 of 2010 applicant-appellant was not having the knowledge of passing of award dated 24.04.2003 by learned reference Court and that he came to know about the same when he received the enhanced compensation. It has been contended that the amount was received in August, 2005. Even if that is taken to be correct, he applied copy of award on 24.12.2005 i.e. after about four months without any explanation. Copy of award was supplied to him on the same day. Despite that appeal was initially filed in this Court on 07.01.2006 i.e. after about two years of the receiving of certified copy of the award. As there were some objections, the appellant has taken another about one and half year in removing the said objections and the appeal was filed on 15.04.2009. Hence, it has been rightly argued by learned counsel for the respondent-State that no ground for condonation of inordinate delay of 1448 days in filing and refiling the appeal is made out. In a recent judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and another, 2010(2) RCR(Civil) 284, law on the point of condonation of delay in filing the appeal has been summed up as under:- “8. We have considered the respective submissions. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The legislature does not prescribe limitation with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. To put it differently, the law of limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed for redress 2 RFA No.939 of 2010 of the legal injury. At the same time, the courts are bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is shown for not availing the remedy within the stipulated time. The expression "sufficient cause" employed in Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 and similar other statutes is elastic enough to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub serves the ends of justice. Although, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in dealing with the applications for condonation of delay, this Court has justifiably advocated adoption of a liberal approach in condoning the delay of short duration and a stricter approach where the delay is inordinate - Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 2 SCC 107, N.Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy 1999(2) RCR (Civil) 578: (1998) 7 SCC 123 and Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil 2001(3) RCR(Civil) 831: (2001) 9 SCC 106. In dealing with the applications for condonation of delay filed on behalf of the State and its agencies/instrumentalities this Court has, while emphasizing that same yardstick should be applied for deciding the applications for condonation of delay filed by private individuals and the State, observed that certain amount of latitude is not impermissible in the latter case because the State represents collective cause of the community and the decisions are taken by the officers/agencies at a slow pace and encumbered process of pushing the files from table to table consumes considerable time causing delay - G. Ramegowda v. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer 1988(1) RRR 555: (1988) 2 SCC 142, State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani 1996(2) RRR 82: (1996) 3 SCC 132, State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra 1996 (2) SCT 712: (1996) 9 SCC 309, State of Bihar v. Ratan Lal Sahu (1996) 10 SCC 635, State of Nagaland v. Lipok Ao 200;5:(2) RCR Criminal 414: 2005(2): RCR (Civil) 375: 2005 (2) Apex Criminal 75: (2005) 3 SCC 752, and State (NCT of 3 RFA No.939 of 2010 Delhi) v. Ahmed Jaan 2008(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 119: 2008(4) RCR(Civil) 126: 2008(4) SCT 25: 2008(2) RCR(Rent) 234: 2008(5) RAJ 214: (2008) 14 SCC 582.” Hence, in view of this legal proposition, court is bestowed with power to condone the delay in filing the appeal, if sufficient cause is shown for not filing the same within the stipulated period. No straight jacket formula can be laid down in dealing with the application for condonation of delay. However, Hon’ble Apex Court in various judgments held that liberal approach should be adopted by the Courts in condoning the delay of short duration and a stricter approach where the delay is inordinate. Hence, what to talk of sufficient ground, no ground is made out for condonation of delay of 1448 days in filing and refiling the present regular first appeal. Hence, the present application for condonation of delay is, hereby, dismissed. RFA No.939 of 2010 As a consequence thereof, the present regular first appeal is also dismissed as having not been filed within the prescribed period of limitation. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) August 10, 2011. JUDGE 'om' 4