IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 4206 of 1986 DATE OF DECISION : 16.09.2010 M/s Hans Raj Mahajan and Sons Private Ltd., G.T. Road, Jalandhar City .... PETITIONER Versus State of Punjab and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. G.S. Jaswal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Gurveen H. Singh, Addl. A.G., Punjab. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J The petitioner company has filed the instant petition for quashing the order dated 14.11.1985 (Annexure P-2), passed by the Appellate Authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner company against the order dated 29.10.1984 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Competent Authority (Urban Ceiling Officer), Jalandhar, has been dismissed, being barred by limitation. In the present case, the petitioner company filed a return under Section 6 of the Act. Vide order dated 29.10.1984, after hearing the petitioner, the Competent Authority (Urban Ceiling Officer), Jalandhar, CWP No. 4206 of 1986 -2- declared 501 square meter area as surplus with the petitioner company. Feeling aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner company filed an appeal before the Decputy Commissioner, Jalandhar, exercising the powers of the Appellate Authority under the Act, along with an application for condonation of delay, stating therein that the appeal could not be filed within limitation, because Shri Satish Kumar Mahajan, a partner of the petitioner company, who conducted the case on behalf of the petitioner company, had gone abroad. After his return to India, he fell seriously ill and remained admitted in Tagore Hospital, Jalandhar and was confined to bed till 8.10.1985. Therefore, he could authorise Shri Gurdip Singh Sachdeva, Advocate, to file appeal, only on 9.10.1985. It was stated in the application for condonation of delay that this delay in filing the appeal had occurred due to unavoidable circumstances. The Appellate Authority has dismissed the application of the petitioner for condoning delay on the ground that no sufficient reason was given for condonation of delay. Accordingly, the appeal was also dismissed being barred by limitation. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this petition deserves to be allowed. Undisputedly, the appeal filed by the petitioner company against the order of the Compete Authority (Urban Ceiling Officer), Jalandhar, has been dismissed only on the ground of limitation. It is not the case of the respondents that delay in filing the appeal cannot be condoned. Rather, it is admitted position that on an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, delay, if sufficiently CWP No. 4206 of 1986 -3- explained by the appellant, could have been condoned by the Appellate Authority. In the instant case, there was one year delay in filing the appeal. The petitioner company in its application had given reasons for occurring of delay in filing the appeal. Though from the record, it is not clear that the respondents filed any reply to the said application, but in the written statement, filed in this writ petition, no reply has been filed by the respondents to the explanation given by the petitioner company for delay in filing the appeal. The factum regarding going of Shri Satish Kumar Mahajan, a partner of the petitioner company, who was conducting the matter, to abroad and subsequently, his falling ill, has not been denied. In view of these facts, I am of the opinion that the respondents have sufficiently explained the delay in filing the appeal and in view of the explanation, application for condoning delay in filing the appeal against the order passed by the Competent Authority (Urban Ceiling Officer), Jalandhar, should not have been dismissed and the Appellate Authority was not justified in dismissing the appeal being barred by limitation. It is now well settled that the expression “sufficient cause” within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 or any other similar provision should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice, when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fides is imputable to a party, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Nath Sao v. Gobardhan Sao, (2002) 3 SCC 195. In the instant case, it is neither the case of the respondents nor can be said in the facts and circumstances of the case, that CWP No. 4206 of 1986 -4- the petitioner company was negligent or there was want of bona fides on its part. In my opinion, the Appellate Authority has taken a pedantic and hyper technical view, particularly in the matter where land of the landowner has been declared surplus under the Act. The Appellate Authority should not have dismissed the appeal of the petitioner company on the ground of limitation, which may cause enormous loss to the petitioner company. In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed and the order dated 14.11.1985 (Annexure P-2), passed by the Appellate Authority, is set aside; and the case is remanded to the Appellate Authority, Jalandhar, with a direction to decide the appeal, filed by the petitioner company against the order dated 21.10.1984 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Competent Authority (Urban Ceiling Officer), Jalandhar, on merits, in accordance with law, after providing opportunity of hearing to both the parties. September 16, 2010 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE