CR No. 4373 of 2008 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 4373 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision : 5.2.2010 Amarjit Singh .......... Petitioner Versus M/s Dashmesh Commission Agents ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr.G.L. Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Punchhi, Advocate for the respondent. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) C.M. No. 21850-CII of 2009 C.M. is allowed. The order dated 8.9.2009 is recalled and the revision is restored to its original number. C.R. No. 4373 of 2008 The petitioner has challenged the order dated 12.2.2008, passed by the learned district Judge, Ferozepur, vide which application moved by the petitioner for condoning the delay of 17 days in filing the appeal, stands dismissed. The plaintiff / respondent filed a suit for recovery on the basis of Bahi entry. The suit was contested. However, in view of the fact that the petitioner did not lead any evidence to controvert the evidence led by the CR No. 4373 of 2008 2 plaintiff / respondent, the suit for recovery was decreed. The case of the petitioner before the learned lower appellate Court was, that the petitioner had instructed the Clerk of the counsel to get the certified copy of the order, which was applied by him on 20.10.2005. While applying for the certified copy of the judgment and decree, the date of decision was wrongly mentioned. The Copying Agency pointed out the defect on 22.10.2005, but the petitioner took no steps to get the application corrected, which was only done on 8.11.2005. In view of the fact, that the correction in the application for certified copy was made on 8.11.2005, this date was taken to be the date of application. The copy was prepared on 10.11.2005, and received by the petitioner on 14.11.2005. The petitioner thereafter immediately filed an appeal, but in view of the reasons referred to above, there occurred a delay of 17 days, in filing the appeal. The petitioner sought condonation of delay by pleading, the reasons given above by claiming him to be sufficient for condoning the delay of 17 days. The application was opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent. The learned lower appellate Court did not find the reason given to be making out a sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 17 days in filing the appeal. The learned lower appellate Court held, that the story seemed to be concocted. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends, that the facts pleaded and proved on the face of its shows, that there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 17 days and the petitioner could not be held to be negligent, as he depended on his counsel, for getting the certified copy. The CR No. 4373 of 2008 3 position explained above stood accepted by the learned District Judge, but the only reason for rejecting his application was as to why the appellant had not taken any steps for 19 days to file application for the certified copy. The reasoning of the learned lower appellate Court cannot be accepted, in view of the fact, that it is now well settled law that sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has to be liberally construed. The party by condonation of delay does not benefit but only get a right to contest the case on merit. The ground taken for condonation of delay did constitute sufficient ground for condoning the delay of merely 17 days. In any case, the respondent could be compensated with cots as the delay was merely of 17 days that too for no fault on the part of the petitioner but on account of action of Clerk of the counsel in applying the certified copy. Revision is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded back to the learned lower appellate Court for decision on appeal on merit in accordance with law. This shall be subject to payment of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as costs. The parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the learned lower appellate court on 9.4.2010. 5.2.2010 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE