C.M. No.6289-CI of 2008 and RFA No.3088 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. No.6289-CI of 2008 and RFA No.3088 of 2008 Date of Decision: 09.12.2009 Tej Pal .……Appellant Versus State of Haryana and another ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate for the applicant-appellant. Ms. Mamta Singal Talwar, AAG, Haryana. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) CM No.6289-CI of 2008 This is application by appellant-Tej Pal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 3370 days in filing the appeal. Chequered history of other cases has been pleaded as ground for condonation of delay. The application has been resisted by the respondents. It has been pleaded that against the same award of Reference Court passed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, State of Haryana had preferred RFA No.100 of 1999 against present appellant Tej Pal. The said RFA was decided alongwith bunch of other appeals vide judgment dated 07.07.1999 passed in main RFA No.1346 of 1998 whereby compensation awarded by Reference Court at the rate of Rs.325/- per square yard was reduced to Rs.90/- per square yard. Only some of the landowners preferred Letters Patent Appeal against the said C.M. No.6289-CI of 2008 and RFA No.3088 of 2008 -2- judgment, but the said appeal was also dismissed by this Court. Thereafter, some landowners approached the Hon'ble Apex Court. However, the present appellant did not challenge judgment dated 07.07.1999 whereby appeal preferred by the State of Haryana against the appellant herein was allowed. The said judgment has attained finality. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. As noticed hereinabove, State of Haryana had preferred appeal against the appellant herein. The said appeal has since been allowed by this Court and the said judgment has attained finality. The appellant herein neither filed cross-objection in the said appeal nor himself filed appeal against the award of the Reference Court even after having notice of appeal preferred by State of Haryana. In these circumstances, the contention of counsel for the appellant that in some other cases, the matter was remanded by Hon'ble Apex Court to reference Court and was, thereafter decided by reference Court and also by this Court in appeal, would not help the appellant in the instant case for condonation of long delay of more than nine years in filing the appeal. Vide order dated 03.07.2009, it was observed that the appellant herein did not file any appeal or cross-objections in spite of RFA No.100 of 1999 filed by State of Haryana against the appellant herein. The appellant also did not challenge the judgment of this Court passed in RFA No.100 of 1999 preferred by State of Haryana. In view thereof also the appellant is estopped from filing the instant C.M. No.6289-CI of 2008 and RFA No.3088 of 2008 -3- appeal. On 03.07.2009, counsel for the appellant prayed for adjournment to advance argument on the aforesaid legal aspect. However, no such argument has been advanced even today. Thus the fact remains that judgment in appeal preferred by State of Haryana has already attained finality and consequently for this reason as well, the instant appeal cannot be entertained. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, I find that no ground whatsoever has been made out by the appellant for condonation of long delay of more than 9 years in filing the appeal. It is correct that the Courts adopt liberal approach in matter of condonation of delay. However, there has to be some limit to the said liberal approach also. The liberal approach cannot be stretched to an extent as to make the law of limitation completely redundant. If delay of more than 9 years in filing the appeal is condoned without there being any justification whatsoever, the Limitation Act would become infructuous. The Court cannot make the Limitation Act infructuous in this manner. In view of the aforesaid, I find no merit in the appellant's application for condonation of delay of 3370 days in filing the appeal. The application is accordingly dismissed. RFA No.3088 of 2008 The appeal is consequently dismissed as time barred. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 09.12.2009 A. Kaundal