IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 4512 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: September 6, 2011. Smt. Bimla and others. ...... APPELLANT (s) Versus Smt. Ratni @Shakuntala and others. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. O.P.Goyal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arun Sharma and Mr. N.D.Achint, Advocates for the applicants-appellants. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) CM Nos.13443-44 C of 2010 Heard. The present appeal has not been filed within prescribed period of limitation. There is delay of 400 days in filing and 91 days in refiling i.e. total 491 days’ delay in filing the proper appeal before this Court. RSA No.4512 of 2010 It has been contended by learned counsel for the applicants- appellants that liberal construction is generally made by the courts in condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The ground taken for condonation of delay in filing the present regular second appeal is that, the copy though applied on 17.01.2009, was prepared on 24.01.2009 and the same was delivered on 13.02.2009 to the clerk of the Advocate and however, the copy was not supplied to appellants by the clerk of the Advocate and the Advocate concerned. The copy was supplied in the third week of February, 2010 and hence, there is delay of 400 days in filing the present appeal. Further ground taken for delay of 91 days in refiling the appeal is that initially court fee was not paid on the basis of schedule prior to the amendment and hence, objection was taken by the registry for rectifying the mistake and again clerk of the counsel misplaced the file and hence, there is delay of 91 days. There is inordinate delay in filing and refiling the present appeal before this Court. The ground taken is very vague one. The application is not even accompanied by affidavits of the Advocate and his clerk who has allegedly kept the copy with him for such an inordinate period. Even the name of clerk has not been mentioned. It has also not been mentioned as to when the appellant visited his Advocate for obtaining certified copy. Again there is vague plea that the file was misplaced by clerk of the counsel when the same was returned by the registry to rectify the objection regarding court fee raised by the registry and 91 days were taken in refiling the appeal. 2 RSA No.4512 of 2010 In a recent judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and another, 2010(2) RCR(Civil) 284, law on the point of condonation of delay in filing the appeal has been summed up as under:- “8. We have considered the respective submissions. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The legislature does not prescribe limitation with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. To put it differently, the law of limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed for redress of the legal injury. At the same time, the courts are bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is shown for not availing the remedy within the stipulated time. The expression "sufficient cause" employed in Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 and similar other statutes is elastic enough to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub serves the ends of justice. Although, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in dealing with the applications for condonation of delay, this Court has justifiably advocated adoption of a liberal approach in condoning the delay of short duration and a stricter approach where the delay is inordinate - Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 2 SCC 107, N.Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy 1999(2) RCR (Civil) 578: (1998) 7 SCC 123 and Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil 2001(3) RCR(Civil) 831: (2001) 9 SCC 106. In dealing with the applications for condonation of delay filed on behalf of the State and its agencies/instrumentalities this Court has, while emphasizing 3 RSA No.4512 of 2010 that same yardstick should be applied for deciding the applications for condonation of delay filed by private individuals and the State, observed that certain amount of latitude is not impermissible in the latter case because the State represents collective cause of the community and the decisions are taken by the officers/agencies at a slow pace and encumbered process of pushing the files from table to table consumes considerable time causing delay - G. Ramegowda v. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer 1988(1) RRR 555: (1988) 2 SCC 142, State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani 1996(2) RRR 82: (1996) 3 SCC 132, State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra 1996 (2) SCT 712: (1996) 9 SCC 309, State of Bihar v. Ratan Lal Sahu (1996) 10 SCC 635, State of Nagaland v. Lipok Ao 200;5:(2) RCR Criminal 414: 2005(2): RCR (Civil) 375: 2005 (2) Apex Criminal 75: (2005) 3 SCC 752, and State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ahmed Jaan 2008(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 119: 2008(4) RCR(Civil) 126: 2008(4) SCT 25: 2008(2) RCR(Rent) 234: 2008(5) RAJ 214: (2008) 14 SCC 582.” Hence, in view of this legal proposition, court is bestowed with power to condone the delay in filing the appeal, if sufficient cause is shown for not filing the same within the stipulated period. No straight jacket formula can be laid down in dealing with the application for condonation of delay. However, Hon’ble Apex Court in various judgments held that liberal approach should be adopted by the Courts in condoning the delay of short duration and a stricter approach where the delay is inordinate. Hence, what to talk of sufficient ground, no ground is made out for condonation of delay of 491 days in filing and refiling the present regular second appeal. 4 RSA No.4512 of 2010 Hence, the present applications for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal are, hereby, dismissed. RSA No.4512 of 2010 As a consequence thereof, the present regular second appeal is also dismissed as having not been filed within the prescribed period of limitation. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) September 6, 2011. JUDGE 'om’ 5