Civil Revision No. 2727 of 2011(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2727 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: 27.4.2011 *** Vijay Kumar .. Petitioner Vs. Punjab Wakf Board, Ambala & Ors. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present:- Mr. G.S. Duhan, Advocate for the petitioner. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. In the instant revision petition, challenge is to the judgment and decree dated 18.4.2007 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kaithal exercising the powers under Wakf Tribunal, by virtue of which the suit for possession filed by respondent Wakf Board against the petitioner-defendant, has been decreed. Since there was delay of 1371 days in filing the instant revision petition, an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act read with Section 151 CPC seeking condonation of delay of aforesaid period is being filed along with the present revision petition. Let us examine whether the aforesaid colossal delay has been explained by the petitioner or not? Para No.3 of the application wherein an attempt has been made by the petitioner to explain the delay reads as under:- “3. That the relevant reason for occurring the delay are that after the decision of the case, the applicant has not received any information from the counsel of the lower court regarding the decision of the case. The applicant has received the summon of execution of the judgment and decree dated 18.4.2007 in the month of Jan, 2011 and found that the suit of the respondent was Civil Revision No. 2727 of 2011(O&M) 2 transferred from the learned civil court to Wakf Tribunal, Kaithal in the month of Jan, 2007 and the Ld. Wakf Tribunal, Kaithal has allowed the suit of the respondent no.1 on dated 18.04.2007. The applicant immediately contacted to the counsel of the lower court, Kaithal and the clerk has supplied on dated 05.03.2011 for the copy of judgment on 18.4.2007 and which was prepared on 7.3.2011 and received by the clerk on 10.3.2011. The applicant has collected copy and other papres for filing the petition and thereafter contacted the counsel at Chandigarh on 10.4.2011 and got the petition prepared which was filed on 18.4.2011. In this way delay of 1371 days has occurred in filing the petition, which is bonafide, unintentional and deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice.” From the above, it is apparent that the sole ground taken by the petitioner is about non-intimation regarding decision of the case by the counsel. It is evident from the impugned judgment that the petitioner appeared before the Court and filed written statement to the plaint and remained represented throughout the suit, through his counsel. It was suit filed by the Wakf Board seeking possession of the suit property from the petitioner along with rent for use and occupation thereof and it cannot be believed that after filing the written statement, the petitioner even did not bother to know about the status of the case for all these years i.e. from the year 2007 to 2011. The self-serving bald assertion made by the petitioner cannot be accepted. There is no dispute with the proposition of law that sufficient cause should receive liberal construction but this should be only in case of delay of few days whereas in the present case, the delay is inordinate and that causes prejudice to the other party. In P.K. Ramachandran Vs. State of Kerala and another, 1997(7) SCC 556, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:- “The law of limitation may harshly affect a particular Civil Revision No. 2727 of 2011(O&M) 3 party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes and the courts have no power to extent 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. 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.” In view of the discussion above, the application for condonation of delay as also the revision petition stand dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE April 27 , 2011 Jiten