R.S.A.No. 2494 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 2494 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 5.5.2011 Nand Kishore and others ......Appellants Versus Satpal and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Parveen Chauhan, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. N.K.Suneja, Advocate for respondents **** SABINA, J. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration that they had become owners in possession of the suit property. The case was referred to the Lok Adalat that the same be disposed of in terms of the written statement filed by the defendants vide judgment and decree dated 2.12.2006. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, plaintiff No.4 preferred an appeal and the present appellants preferred cross-objections. The appeal filed by appellant Ram Narain was dismissed as not maintainable. The cross-objections R.S.A.No. 2494 of 2009 (O&M) 2 filed by the present appellants were dismissed being not maintainable and being time barred. Hence, the appeal has been filed by the appellants along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (‘the Act’ for short) seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Vide this order, the application moved by the appellants under Section 5 of the Act shall be disposed of. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the delay in filing the appeal was liable to be condoned as the same was neither intentional nor deliberate. The appellants had been misguided by their counsel in the trial Court, who had assured the appellants that he would get the impugned judgment and decree set aside before the trial Court itself. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that the appeal had been filed after the delay of more than one year and hence, the delay in filing the appeal could not be condoned. The Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another vs. Mst. Matiji and others, AIR 1987 Supreme Court, 1353 had held as under:- 1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the R.S.A.No. 2494 of 2009 (O&M) 3 parties. 3. “Every day's delay must be explained” does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. 4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. 5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of malafides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. 6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.” Thus, ordinarily, delay in filing the appeal is liable to be condoned as a liberal approach is required to be adopted while dealing with an application for condonation of delay. However, an appellant is required to establish that the delay in filing the appeal was neither intentional nor deliberate. The grounds taken by the appellants that they had been misguided by their counsel that he would get the impugned judgment and decree set aside from the trial R.S.A.No. 2494 of 2009 (O&M) 4 Court itself does not appeal to reason. The plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration that they be declared owner of the suit property. Appellants No.1 to 3 and Hari Shankar, predecessor-in-interest of appellants No.4 to 8, had filed a written statement alleging therein that the decree be passed in favour of plaintiff No.4. However, the Lok Adalat decreed the suit qua all the plaintiffs. In the real sense the person aggrieved by the said judgment and decree can be said to be plaintiff No.4, who had got less share as the suit had been decided in favour of all the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs No.4 and 5 were sons of Tuhi Ram, whereas, plaintiffs No.1 to 3 were sons of Desha, brother of plaintiffs No.4 and 5. Nand Kishore, Lakhan Lal, Mahesh Chand, Hari Shanakar,predecessor-in-interest of appellants No.4 to 8, are the sons of Murti, daughter of Tuhi Ram (sister of plaintiff No.4) and they had no objection if the suit was decreed qua plaintiff No.4. It appears that the appellants did not initially want to file an appeal but later decided to file the same and consequently, the delay in filing the appeal has occurred. Hence, in the present case, the delay in filing the appeal cannot be said to be bona fide. Thus, the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal stands dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed being time barred. (SABINA) JUDGE May 05, 2011 anita