Civil Revision No.2558 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2558 of 2009 Date of decision:09.02.2010. Gurudwara Sahib Singh Sabha (Regd.), Amloh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. G.S.Punia, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Moudgil, DAG, Punjab. ***** S.D.ANAND, J. The facts in the first instance: - The petitioner – Gurudwara Sahib Singh Sabha (Regd.), Amloh (hereinafter referred to as `the petitioner herein') filed a Civil Suit (No.616RT/17.11.2004/20.09.05) for the restraint of the defendants therein (hereinafter referred to as `the respondents herein') from interfering in former's possession on the land in suit. The averment was that the petitioner herein is in possession of that land, as owner thereof, since times immemorial and that the land is being given by it on lease from year to year. The plea, raised in the alternative, was that the petitioner herein had obtained title of that land by adverse possession qua the State Government, in whose name the title stood recorded in the revenue record. In that very context, it was averred that the possession of the petitioner herein is recorded in the revenue record maintained by none else or other than the officials of the respondents herein. That suit came Civil Revision No.2558 of 2009 -2- to be decreed, vide judgment and decree dated 19.03.2007. In an appeal filed against that judgment and decree, the respondents herein filed a plea for condonation of delay of 312 days in filing thereof. The plea was resisted by the petitioner herein. The parties joined issue on the point of sufficiency or otherwise of the grounds for condonation of delay. The then learned District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, allowed the condonation plea. In obtaining that view, the learned District Judge accepted the presentation that the Assistant District Attorney attached to the learned Trial Court could not obtain certified copies of the judgment and decree in time as he was busy looking after his ailing son. The learned District Judge was also persuaded by the fact that the governmental litigation being impersonal in character was entitled to extra indulgence at the hands of the Court. The following facts are apparent from the record: - The arguments in the matter had been heard by the learned Trial Court on 17.03.2007. The judgment came to be delivered on 19.03.2007. Application for obtaining certified copies of the judgment and decree was filed on 04.12.2007. The appeal came to be filed on 25.02.2008. The plea for condonation of delay was supported by the statement of Assistant District Attorney attached to the learned Trial Court. If one peruses the statement of the Assistant District Attorney (a copy whereof was placed on record as Annexure P-4), one would find that the respondents herein deserve to be non-suited. In the course of the affidavit Annexure P-4 (tendered in lieu of the examination-in-chief), Shri Rajinder Singh Mander, Assistant District Civil Revision No.2558 of 2009 -3- Attorney made an averment that the matter had been reserved by the learned Trial Court for orders and that he “used to confirm from the Court with reference to the decision”. His son got ill “and due to rush of work he could not got confirmed about the decision. Thereafter in the month of December 2007 the concerned ADA of Amloh came to know that the above said case has already been decided on 19.03.2007 against the State”. In the course of the cross-examination, Shri Rajinder Singh Mander conceded that he prepares a file of each case in which he appears on behalf of the Government. He also conceded, as correct, a suggestion that he records the proceedings taken in that case on a particular date and also the next date thereof. He did qualify the statement aforementioned by indicating in the next sentence that he does that job himself and that, at times, it is done by his Naib Court. On the date he was cross-examined, he conceded that he had not brought along that file on that date (“The file which was with me at the time of pendency of case at Amloh in which I used to enter date and proceeding that I have not brought today. ........ The above mentioned file is in my custody at Amloh office”). He also conceded, as correct, a suggestion that a Kanungo used to attend every date of hearing on behalf of the State Government and that he used to intimate the Kanungo about what proceedings had taken place on that particular date and what was the next date of hearing. In the course of the application for condonation of delay, Shri Rajinder Singh Mander, ADA, had made an averment that he could not stay in touch with the progress of the case as his son got ill and on account of rush of work. In cross-examination in that respect, he conceded that his son never got hospitalized. He did not recollect Civil Revision No.2558 of 2009 -4- whether he obtained leave in order to be able to attend his ailing son or not? For want of recollection, he could not indicate whether he had proceeded on long leave in February – March, 2007 or not. (He had conceded that his son fell ill sometime in the month of February-march 2007). He was not in a position to indicate where from he had been trying to ascertain the fate of the litigation aforementioned nor did he recollect the dates of the enquiries made by him. Interestingly enough, it is in his own statement that the Collector and the Tehsildar of the area were in the know of the decision of the case before it came to his notice in December 2007 (“Before I came to know regarding decision in this case in December 2007, Collector and Tehsildar knew about the decision of the case”). It is apparent from the record that the certified copies of the judgment and decree were applied for and delivered on 04.02.2007. The Tehsildar concerned forwarded it to the Deputy Commissioner on 07.12.2007. The Deputy Commissioner forwarded it to the District Attorney on 16.01.2008 with the direction to file appeal. The District Attorney forwarded it to the Director, Prosecution on 21.01.2008. The Director addressed a communication dated 07.02.2008 to the District Attorney, requiring the latter to obtain the comments of the ADA concerned. The comments were forwarded to the Director on 13.02.2008. The Director issued instructions on 18.02.2008 for filing appeal which (appeal) came to be filed on 28.02.2008. The only inference deducible from the above noticed facts is that all concerned acted with negligence in the matter. Insofar as the showing of indulgence to the governmental litigation is concerned, there can be no dispute that the litigation (to which the Government is a party) is impersonal in character. At the same time, Civil Revision No.2558 of 2009 -5- each such litigation concerns the public interest. The showing of some bit of indulgence to the governmental litigation can surely be justified. At the same time, there is no warrant for the proposition that the Courts can go as far to show indulgence to the government in the matter of condonation of delay. Affirmation of the view obtained by the then learned District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib would amount to validating an altogether different approach to the governmental matters pertaining to condonation of delay, as against the approach authorized by the Limitation Act qua private litigation. That would not be an acceptable proposition. I do not agree with the line of reasoning adopted by the then learned District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib. It is in the course of the impugned order itself that the learned District Judge indicated that the imposition of costs “may alert the State to take appropriate action against such official concerned”. The learned State counsel was not in a position to inform the Court whether any action in the context had been taken against the delinquent officials or not. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the petition shall stand allowed. The order dated 20.03.2009 granted by the then learned District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib shall stand set aside. The appeal filed by the respondents herein against the judgment and decree 19.03.2007 shall be deemed to have been dismissed as time barred. February 09, 2010 (S.D.ANAND) vinod* JUDGE