RSA No.2092 of 2010 (O & M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2092 of 2010(O & M) Date of Decision: 24.08.2010 Lakhbir Singh alias Lakha .....Appellant Versus Gurdev Kaur alias Gurdeep Kaur and others ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Vikram Bali, Advocate for the applicant-appellant. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) CM No.6373-C of 2010 This is application by appellant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for condonation of delay of 709 days in filing the appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant-appellant and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant contended that efforts for compromise were being made and, therefore, the appeal could not be filed within limitation period and consequently delay in filing the appeal should be condoned. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention, but find myself unable to accept the same. Paragraph 3 of the application containing the main ground for condonation of delay is reproduced hereunder:- “ That the reason for filing the present appeal beyond the period of limitation is that there are other RSA No.2092 of 2010 (O & M) -2- litigations also pending between the appellant and other claimants of Manjit Kaur wherein efforts of compromise were being made. As such, the appellant did not file any appeal challenging the impugned judgment and decree dated 15.12.2007 of the Learned District Judge, Bathinda. Unfortunately compromise failed.” Perusal of the aforesaid paragraph 3 of the application reveals that there is only a vague assertion that efforts for compromise were being made and, therefore, the instant appeal was not filed earlier, but unfortunately compromise failed. Judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court are dated 15.12.2007 whereas the instant appeal was filed on 02.03.2010. It cannot be said that for more than two years, efforts for compromise were going on. Moreover, the suit and first appeal remained pending for almost 9 years and, therefore, the parties had the said long period at their disposal for making efforts for compromise. In addition to the aforesaid, the averment of the applicant-appellant that appeal was earlier not filed as efforts were being made for compromise is falsified by averments made in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the application, which are also reproduced hereunder:- “ That the appeal filed by other claimants of the deceased Manjit Kaur, against the mutation sanctioned in favour of appellant, was allowed vide order dated 27.08.2008 passed by the learned Collector and affirmed by learned Commissioner vide order dated 17.09.2009. RSA No.2092 of 2010 (O & M) -3- That the appellant has filed R.O.R before the Financial Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Revenue, Punjab, against the order of Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot, dated 17.09.2009, and as such it has become necessary to file the present appeal.” Perusal of the aforesaid averments reveals that appeal filed by other claimants of deceased Manjit Kaur (original plaintiff) against mutation was allowed by Collector vide order dated 27.08.2008 i.e more than 8 months after the passing of the judgment and decree by lower Appellate Court in the instant case. Not only that, order of the Collector dated 27.08.2008 was affirmed by the Commissioner vide order dated 17.09.2009 and the applicant- appellant preferred revision against the said orders before Financial Commissioner. It would depict that throughout, the applicant- appellant had been pursuing the appeals/revision arising out of the mutation proceedings long after judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court in the instant case. Consequently, the averments of the applicant-appellant that the instant second appeal was not filed because of efforts for compromise being made cannot be accepted and is patently false as depicted by the other averments of the applicant-appellant noticed hereinabove. It is correct that Courts adopt liberal approach in the matter of condonation of delay. However, liberal approach cannot stretched to an extent as to make the law of limitation completely redundant. If long delay of almost 2 years is condoned without their being any ground whatsoever, law of limitation would be rendered RSA No.2092 of 2010 (O & M) -4- completely infructuous and nugatory. The ground pleaded for condonation of this long delay is patently untenable and false. Consequently, long delay of 709 days in filing the appeal cannot be condoned. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, I find no merit in the instant application which is accordingly dismissed. Main Appeal. Resultantly, the instant second appeal is dismissed as time barred. 24.08.2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) A. Kaundal JUDGE