IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.M. No. 11748-C of 2008 and R.S.A. No. 3948 of 2008 Date of decision: 4-2-2009 Om Parkash … Applicant -appellant versus Chhaju & others … Respondents THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. H.S.Baath, Advocate, for the applicant-appellant. … ARVIND KUMAR, J: The present appellant is one of the legal representatives of Chander(since deceased) who was defendant in the suit for declaration filed by Chhaju. The suit was dismissed. However, the appeal was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 28.7.1997. The present appeal has been filed on 29.8.2008. Along with the appeal, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has also been filed and the delay of 4051 days in filing the instant regular second appeal has been sought to be condoned. The ground taken is that during the pendency of the appeal before the first appellate Court, he was convicted and his counsel had not informed him about the fate of the appeal. The explanation, referred to above, is not worth of any credence. Certified copy of the judgment was applied for on 21.10.1997 and delivery of the same was taken on 7.11.1997. No proof has been annexed to show that the applicant-appellant remained in jail throughout in all these years. There is also no indication that there was no one else to prosecute his cause. Thus, no plausible explanation is forthcoming for not filing the appeal within limitation. The approach, as taken, is very casual. It has also been the endeavour of this Court to hear the parties on merits, but in the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellant has been negligent and callous throughout. Although the Hon'ble Supreme Court has recommended that a pedantic approach should C.M. No. 11748-C of 2008 and R.S.A. No. 3948 of 2008 -2- not be made in the matter, but in the cases where there is huge delay, such a discretion cannot be exercised as it would become mockery of law of limitation. No person should be allowed to take undue advantage of such a concession. The Courts should also not lose sight of the fact that by not taking steps within the time prescribed, a valuable right accrued to the other party gets defeated. In the case of 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.” Thus, there being no plausible explanation, this Court finds no justification for condoning the delay of about 10 years in filing the instant appeal as it would be unfair to the defendant-respondent to re-open the settled issue once again. Accordingly, the instant application as well as the appeal stand dismissed. ( ARVIND KUMAR ) February 4, 2009 JUDGE JS