C.R. No.2149 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.2149 of 2008 Decided on : 26-04-2010 Jaswinder Singh .... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab & others .... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER. Present:- Mr. S.K. Chawla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Surinder Kapoor, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for the respondents. MAHESH GROVER, J (Oral). The petitioner impugns the order dated 3.12.2007 of the Additional District Judge, Faridkot (in short 'the first appellate Court'), vide which his application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with order 41 Rule 3(A) of C.P.C. for condonation of delay, was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this has resulted in gross injustice to the petitioner and the appeal was required to be heard on merits. Learned counsel for the respondents contends that the findings recorded by the first appellate Court are correct and the present petition deserves to be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned order. C.R. No.2149 of 2008 -2- The petitioner had filed an appeal after delay of 1150 days of the passing of the judgment by the learned Trial Court. In order to justify the delay, he had set up a plea that he had become mentally unstable and in the year 2003, he left his home and was located in 2006 by his family members and thereafter, his treatment was got done and it is only these circumstances, due to which, he could not file the appeal in time. There is indeed no doubt that law of limitation has to be construed liberally so as to enhance substantial justice between the parties but at the same time it does not mean that the delay should not be sufficiently explained and such delay, which is inordinate and which affects the rights of the other side be condoned by the Courts by a cursory and a casual approach. In the instant case, there was substantial delay in filing the appeal by the present petitioner before the first appellate Court, therefore, it was incumbent upon him to justify such a plea. He had pleaded mental illness, but was unable to substantiate such a plea by adducing any cogent evidence on record. No evidence worth the name was produced by the petitioner to show that he was ever suffering from any mental ailment. There is no other explanation which he has given in support of his plea and consequently, in the absence of any justifiable reason, the first appellate Court's reasoning cannot be faulted with. Thus, there is no infirmity in the impugned order. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 26th April, 2010. (MAHESH GROVER) Monika JUDGE