IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6705 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision:3rd November, 2011 The Ghumanpura Friends Co-Op L&C Society Ltd through its President Sh. Gurdeep Singh V.P.O. Ghumanpura, Amritsar. .......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Shri Hemant Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?Yes/No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Vijender Singh Malik, J. This is a revision petition brought by the defendant under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 02.09.2011 (Annexure P-4) passed by Additional District Judge, Amritsar, vide which the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act brought by respondents No. 1 to 3 has been allowed. The petitioner society filed a suit, which was partly decreed by the court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amritsar on 16.11.2010. The appeal filed against the said judgment and decree by respondents No. 1 to 3, was delayed by 141 days. The application filed Civil Revision No. 6705 of 2011 for condonation of delay has been allowed by Additional District Judge, Amritsar vide the impugned order. In an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, respondents No. 1 to 3 had claimed that the application for obtaining certified copies of the judgment and decree dated 16.11.2010 was filed on 25.11.2010; copies were prepared by copying agency, Amritsar on 20.12.2010 and were delivered on 21.12.2010. It is submitted that thereafter, the District Attorney, Amritsar had forwarded his comments alongwith certified copies of the judgment and decree to the Director Prosecution and Litigation and Additional Secretary to Government of Punjab, Chandigarh (for short, 'the Director Prosecution'). It is further averred that the Director Prosecution opined that the case was not fit for filing the appeal and the case was reconsidered by the Government in the Department of Irrigation Works Punjab, Chandigarh and it was decided to file an appeal against the judgment and decree of learned trial court. Accordingly, the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Works Punjab, Chandigarh accorded the sanction of the Governor of Punjab and requested the Director Prosecution to issue necessary instructions to the District Attorney, Amritsar to file an appeal. On receipt of the above instructions from the Director Prosecution, the present appeal has been preferred. The delay is therefore, claimed to be unintentional and to have been caused in the circumstances explained above. The present petition is brought by respondent No. 1, petitioner before me. Its maintainability is disputed. It is averred in 2 Civil Revision No. 6705 of 2011 reply on merits that the Director Prosecution had rightly opined that the case was not fit for appeal. It is claimed that appeal had been filed in order to harass the respondents. The delay of 141 days in filing the appeal is denied to be unintentional and is claimed to be wilful for which it is claimed that there is no ground for condonation of delay. On the pleadings of the parties, learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar had framed the following issues:- “1. Whether there are sufficient grounds to condone the delay in filing the appeal? OPA 2. Relief.” Taking evidence of the parties and hearing learned counsel representing them, learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar has allowed the application taking a liberal view, in view of the principles laid down in this regard by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Collector Land Acquisition Anantnag and another vs. Mst. Katiji and others AIR 1987 Supreme Court 1353. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present revision petition has been filed. I have heard Shri Hemant Saini, learned counsel for the petitioner who has submitted that the delay was of 141 days and it was no where explained in the averments made in the application which are supported by Kulwinder Singh, Sub Divisional Officer, examined as AW1. According to him, learned trial court has taken much liberal view in the matter which is not allowed by the law. According to him, 3 Civil Revision No. 6705 of 2011 by the delay in filing the appeal, a valuable right had accrued in favour of the petitioner and the delay should not have been lightly condoned. He has further submitted that even otherwise the claim of the appellant in the appeal is not meritorious because the Director Prosecution has opined that the case was not fit for filing the appeal. The law as it stands today does not require explanation of each days delay. Whenever there is a delay, some negligence is involved here or there. However, when the case is of the State, the file has to pass through many channels, as is evident from the averments made by the applicants in the application and this causes delay in lodging the appeal. Mere opinion of the Director Prosecution that the case is not fit for filing the appeal could not be final. The Court is always there to find out if there is any merit in the appeal. The appeal would only be allowed if there is merit in the case and in case there is no merit, the court may even dismiss the appeal with costs. In these circumstances, I find no illegality in the approach of the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar in deciding the application for condonation of delay. The revision petition is consequently, dismissed. [VIJENDER SINGH MALIK] JUDGE 3rd November, 2011 Shivani Kaushik 4