IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 4739 of 2010 Date of decision: 25.7.2011 Sadhu Singh … Petitioner versus Sucha Singh and another … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. H.S.Dhandi, Advocate, for the petitioner ... ARVIND KUMAR, J: The present petitioner was defendant No.1 in the suit for possession by way of specific performance titled Sucha Singh v. Sadhu Singh and another. Suit was decreed on 6.9.2001. Petitioner preferred a revision petition in this Court in the year 2008 which was got withdrawn on 5.12.2008 with liberty to file an appeal against the judgment and decree. The appeal before the lower appellate Court was filed on 24.12.2008. The appeal was accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay of nearly 8 years in filing the appeal. The said application has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 4.5.2010. Hence, this revision. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had been pursuing wrong remedy in this High Court and seeks a lenient view. The contention is meritless. 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 the revision before the High Court had been filed in the year 2008, after nearly 8 years of the judgment and decree of the lower Court. There is absolutely no explanation for causing such an C.R. No. 4739 of 2010 -2- inordinate delay. 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 inordinate and 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. July 25, 2011 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) JS JUDGE