IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 3753 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: November 2, 2011. Chinto Devi and others. ...... APPELLANT (s) Versus Kehar Singh and others. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Brijender Kaushik, Advocate, for the applicants-appellants. Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate, for respondent no.1. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) CM No.11106-C of 2010 Heard. The present appeal has not been filed within prescribed period of limitation. There is delay of 232 days in filing the present appeal. The application for condonation of delay of 232 days has been opposed by learned counsel for the respondent no.1-plaintiff. Perusal of the application for condonation of delay shows that the only ground taken by applicants-appellants is that, applicant-appellant no.1 is widow lady and applicant-appellants no.2 and 3 are married and are residing with their respective families and that they were not aware of the RSA No.3753 of 2010 decision of the case and that they came to know about the decision of the case when they received summons in the execution proceedings. However, the plea taken is very vague one. Original suit was filed against Sher Singh, since deceased. The present applicants-defendants were impleaded as LRs of Sher Singh during the pendency of the suit. Suit was decided in the presence of counsel for the applicants-defendants after contest. Appeal filed by present applicants-defendants before learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra was also decided in the presence of counsel for the applicants-defendants. There is no allegation that their counsel did not inform them about the decision of the case. Even, it has not been mentioned as to when they came to know about the decision of the case. It has also not been mentioned as to when they received the summons of the execution petition. Moreover, it has been contended by learned counsel for respondent no.1-plaintiff that application for depositing the amount as per the judgment and decree was filed by respondent no.1-plaintiff on 01.02.2010 and after notice to the present applicants-appellants, the amount was deposited on 02.04.2010 and that notice was also sent to the applicants- appellants again for 13.05.2010 and hence, it is contended that the applicants- appellants were well aware of the judgment dated 29.10.2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra. In a 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:- 2 RSA No.3753 of 2010 “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 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 3 RSA No.3753 of 2010 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, taking into the facts of the case, no ground, what to talk of sufficient ground, is made out for condonation of delay of 232 days in filing the present regular second appeal. Hence, the present application for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal is, hereby, dismissed. RSA No.3753 of 2010 4 RSA No.3753 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 ) November 2, 2011. JUDGE 'om’ 5