IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 1355 of 2011 Date of decision: 25.4.2011 Mulakh Raj Mahendiratta … Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Advocate, for the petitioners ... ARVIND KUMAR, J: C.M. No. 5415-CII of 2011. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the delay of 34 days in filing the revision petition is condoned. Civil Misc. application stands disposed of. C.R. No. 1355 of 2011: The present petitioner, Mulakh Raj Mahendiratta, is the son and legal representative of Ganesh Dass(since deceased). He and others were plaintiffs in the suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction and mandatory injunction. The suit was dismissed on 18.12.2006. All the legal representatives of Ganesh Dass (since deceased) filed an appeal on 7.6.2008. The appeal was accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 485 days in filing the appeal. The said application has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 23.10.2008. Hence, this revision. Counsel for the petitioner has laid stress that the Court should adopt a liberal approach and has made reference to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another v. Mst. Katiji and others, AIR 1987 SC 1353. The other argument is that petitioner and others had instructed Shri Nikhil Chopra, C.R. No. 1355 of 2011 -2- Advocate, to file an appeal but he was busy in preparation of Delhi Higher Judicial Services Examination till July, 2007. Subsequently, his father Krishan Lal Chopra got seriously ill and unfortunately, expired on 25.12.2007. Shri Nikhil Chopra, Advocate, when approached again, he expressed his inability since he had joined as Additional District Judge, Delhi, after his selection and as such, delay was due to inaction on the part of their counsel under constrained circumstances for which a litigant should not suffer. For this, counsel has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ahmed Khan, 2008(4) Recent Criminal Cases 435. The contention is meritless and the judgment as referred to has no application to the facts of the present case. A party is not entitled for condonation of delay as a matter of right. Law of limitation fixed a life span for every legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury suffered. A lethargic litigant cannot leisurely choose his own time in preferring appeal or application. In the instant case, even if it is assumed that Shri Nikhil Chopra, Advocate, was busy in preparation of his examination for Delhi Higher Judicial Services Examination and was busy till July, 2007, then nothing could prevent the petitioner from filing the appeal after July, 2007. Even after the death of father of the said Advocate in December, 2007, no efforts were made by the petitioner to file an appeal. Rather for the first time, they had applied for a certified copy on 26.5.2008. This is a case of total callousness on the part of the applicant-appellant. The matter does not rest here. One Shri Vineet Bajaj, Advocate, had been representing one of the legal representatives, Dr. Ramesh Mahendiratta son of late Ganesh Dass who is none else but the real brother of Mulakh Raj Mahendiratta, petitioner and it is he who also filed the appeal on behalf of all the appellants. Thus, before the trial Court, the appellants were not solely dependent upon Shri Nikhil Chopra, Advocate. Rather Shri Vineet Bajaj, Advocate, was also their counsel before the trial Court. Therefore, the appellants cannot derive any benefit for non-filing of appeal in time on account of the fact that Shri Nikhil Chopra, Advocate, remained busy. There is no dispute with the proposition of law that sufficient cause should receive liberal construction but this should be only in case of delay of few days whereas in the present case, the delay is C.R. No. 1355 of 2011 -3- inordinate and that causes prejudice to the other party. In P.K.Ramachandran v. State of Kerala and another, (1997) 7 Supreme Court Cases 556, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under: “ The law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes and the courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The discretion exercised by the High Court was,thus, neither proper nor judicious. The order condoning the delay cannot be sustained. This appeal, therefore, succeeds and the impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay filed in the High Court would stand rejected and the miscellaneous first appeal shall stand dismissed as barred by time.” In view of the discussion made above, there is no merit in the revision and the same is hereby dismissed. April 25, 2011 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) JS JUDGE