IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3176 of 2008 Date of Decision : December 02, 2008 Banarsi Lal .....Petitioner Versus Punjab Agro Limited and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Hemen Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. O.P. Gabba, Advocate for the respondents. T.P.S. MANN, J. Suit for recovery of Rs. 35,140/-, filed by the petitioner against the respondents, was dismissed by the trial Court on 7.4.2006. The judgment and decree were sought to be challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal. However, there was a delay of 4 months and 15 days in its filing. Accordingly, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed on behalf of the petitioner for the condonation of delay in preferring the appeal but the said application has been declined by learned District Judge, Ferozepur vide impugned order dated 6.5.2008. Hence, the present revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that while appearing as PW1, the petitioner submitted his sworn affidavit in which he categorically deposed that he being about 80 years of age mainly remained confined to bed on account of various old age ailments and the day he Civil Revision No. 3176 of 2008 -2- recovered, he contacted his counsel and without any further delay preferred the appeal along with the application for condonation of delay. Though, the petitioner neither brought any evidence that he remained ill or bed ridden or got any treatment from any medical institution or produced any prescription slip, yet there is no denial of the fact that the petitioner is an old man of about 85 years of age by now, as in the suit itself, which was filed on 23.7.2004, he had already stated his age as about 80 years. This fact is apparent from the judgment Annexure P1 passed by the trial Court on 7.4.2006. It may be that the petitioner was able to attend to his daily chores, like eating his food of his own and going to the toilet, besides visiting his barber but one needs to be almost fit before visiting one's counsel for the purposes of filing the appeal. Top priority by old and aged people is given to their health and not to their business interests unless and until such a person is fit enough to undertake a travel. Moreover, the law of limitation has not to be construed in stricter terms so as to deny the benefit of appeal to the petitioner, who had already lost his cause before the trial Court. The appellate/revisional Court ought to be liberal in determining as to whether sufficient cause has been made out by a litigant for seeking condonation of delay caused in filing of the appeal/revision or such-like matters. Even otherwise the petitioner was not going to gain anything by delaying the filing of the appeal. It was in his interest to take steps for filing the appeal at the earliest against the judgment Civil Revision No. 3176 of 2008 -3- and decree passed by the trial Court. However, while doing so, the petitioner was restricted from travelling and meeting his counsel on account of his old age and health problems related thereto. At the same time, it appears that the petitioner had been fit enough to travel a distance of two furlongs from his house when he had been visiting his barber for the treatment of his allergy. The petitioner is a resident of Ferozepur City. His suit had been dismissed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ferozepur. He was to file the appeal before District Judge, Ferozepur. In case he had made some efforts, he could have contacted his counsel earlier and filed the appeal within time. There appears to be some laxity on the part of the petitioner in not contacting his counsel earlier. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the petitioner had been successful in showing sufficient cause for the condonation of delay. Resultantly, the impugned order cannot be sustained. The revision is, accordingly, allowed, impugned order is set aside and the application filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before District Judge, Ferozepur is allowed, subject to payment of Rs. 5000/- as costs. The lower appellate Court is directed to consider and decide the appeal on merits. The parties, through their counsel, shall appear before the trial Court on 13.1.2009. ( T.P.S. MANN ) December 02, 2008 JUDGE satish Civil Revision No. 3176 of 2008 -4- Whether to be referred to the Reporters : YES / NO