IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CM Nos. 14928-C & 14929 of 2010 & RSA No. 5071 of 2010 Date of decision: 31.10.2011 Surjit Singh and another … Appellants Versus Jaspal Singh and others … Respondents Present: Mr. RKS Brar, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. S.S.Rangi, Advocate, for respondents 1 to 3 … ARVIND KUMAR, J: This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby their suit for declaration to the effect that they have become owners of the disputed property by way of adverse possession and also for decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the disputed property, has been dismissed. Both the Courts below have dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiffs cannot raise the plea of adverse possession for seeking the relief. Before proceeding to take up the matter on merits, the two applications which are for condonation of delay in filing and refiling the appeal are being disposed of. The first application, namely, C.M. No. 14928-C of 2010 has been filed for condonation of delay of 117 days in filing the present appeal. The sole ground taken in the application is that the applicant-appellant is a poor farmer and due to crop failure, he was under heavy debts and therefore, could not arrange money for filing the appeal and thus, delay of 117 days has occurred. The other application, CM No. 14929-C of 2010 has been filed for condonation of delay of 646 days in refiling the appeal wherein it has been pleaded that after filing the appeal, the papers were returned by the Registry with certain objections. The ground taken in this application seeking condonation of delay in refiling the appeal is almost the same as taken in CM No. 14928-C of 2010. Besides CM Nos. 14928-C & 14929-C of 2010 and RSA No. 5071 of 2010 -2- that, it has also been pleaded that the appellant had become sick due to depression and could not contact the counsel due to his ailing health and that the appellant contacted his counsel in the month of October, 2010 who told him that trial Court decree was required for removal of objections. The appellant after getting a copy of the trial Court handed over the same to his counsel on 10.11.2010 for removal of the objection, whereafter the appeal was refiled. The plea taken by the counsel for the applicant- appellants as stated above is not sustainable because no evidence in this regard is forthcoming to show that they were under heavy debts and there was crop failure. In these days, poor farmers who cannot file appeal have been provided free legal aid by the State Legal Agencies. Otherwise also, there are two appellants in the present case whereas condonation for delay in filing and refiling the appeal is being pleaded by only one appellant, i.e. Surjit Singh as is apparent from the contents of the application which is supported by his affidavit. As to what was the status of the other appellant has not been pleaded anywhere in the application. It appears that the grounds taken therein are mere farce only to get the delay condoned. Although the Hon'ble Supreme Court has recommended that pedantic approach should not be made in the matter, but in the cases where there is huge delay, such a discretion cannot be exercised as it would become mockery of law of limitation. No person should be allowed to take undue advantage of such a concession. The Courts should also not lose sight of the fact that by not taking steps within the time prescribed, a valuable right accrued to the other party should not be defeated in a routine like manner. Emphasis is from P.K.Ramachandran v. State of Kerala and another, 1998(3) PLR 605(SC). Consequently, both the applications stand dismissed. Otherwise also, on merits, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and decrees of the Courts below. It is well settled law that the plea of adverse possession cannot be raised by the plaintiff. Article 65 of the Limitation Act provides that such a plea can only be raised by the defendant. This question already stands settled by the CM Nos. 14928-C & 14929-C of 2010 and RSA No. 5071 of 2010 -3- Courts in a catena of judgments. In this context, reference can be made to a judgment in Bhim Singh and others v. Zile Singh and others, 2006(3) Civil Court Cases 479. No question of law, muchless substantial arises in the present appeal. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed being barred by time and on merits as well. October 31, 2011 ( ARVIND KUMAR) JS JUDGE