IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 2726 of 2011 Date of decision: 27.4.2011 Food Corporation of India through its District Manager, Sangrur, and another … Petitioners versus Chaman Lal … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr.H.S.Dhandi, Advocate, for the petitioner ... ARVIND KUMAR, J: The present petitioner, Food Corporation of India, is the respondent in the petition under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act filed by Chaman Lal, proprietor of M/s Satgur Rice Mills. Appeal against dismissal of the petition was filed but it was barred by limitation. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was preferred. The said application has been allowed vide impugned order dated 15.1.2011 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sangrur. In brief, the facts are that petitioner Chaman Lal, proprietor M/s Satgur Rice Mills, Budhlada, District Mansa (respondent herein) filed petition under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The said petition was dismissed on 13.10.2007. Their counsel instead of filing an appeal, filed a revision which was withdrawn with the plea that they will avail a statutory remedy of appeal. Petitioner, in appeal, came to know about this fact on 12.4.2009 from his counsel Shri H.S.Saggu, Advocate. He thus, changed the counsel and the present appeal was filed which was barred by limitation for about 1½ year. The plea was taken that the delay was not intentional. The stand of the FCI-respondent was that the appellant intentionally never filed the appeal before the Court within time. Heard. The term “sufficient cause” in Section 5 of the Limitation Act must receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial C.R. No. 2726 of 2011 -2- justice. When no negligence or inaction or want of bona-fide is imputable to a party, condonation of delay is a rule and refusal an exception. It is always a question whether the mistake was bona-fide or it was a device to cover up an ulterior purpose. In the instant case, counsel for the applicant availed a wrong forum and for his negligence, the party cannot be made to suffer. The petitioner-applicant has not gained anything in delaying the matter. The Court is to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice, that being the life-purpose for the existence of the institution of Courts. The Court should not adopt an injustice oriented approach in rejecting the application for condonation of delay. In this back- drop of the facts, there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the lower appellate Court condoning the delay in filing the appeal. No interference is called for. The revision petition is dismissed. April 27, 2011 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) JS JUDGE