Regular Second Appeal No. 2869 of 1988 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Regular Second Appeal No. 2869 of 1988 Date of Decision: 9.12.2010 Punjab State Electricity Board and Another …Appellants Versus Naranjan Singh …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. B.S. Wasu, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. M.L. Saini, Advocate for the respondent. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present appeal has been filed by the Punjab State Electricity Board through its Chairman and the Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Division No.1, Bhogpur, District Jalandhar. Respondent/plaintiff Naranjan Singh had filed Civil Suit No. 609 of 1986 for mandatory injunction seeking direction to the Electricity Board that the electric poles be shifted from his fields to an alternative place and he further prayed that the suit for permanent injunction be also granted restraining the appellants/defendants from damaging the Safeda (Eucalyptus) trees, planted in the fields of the respondent/plaintiff. The suit filed by the respondent/tenant was decreed by the trial Court, vide its judgment and decree dated 1.12.1987 and the Regular Second Appeal No. 2869 of 1988 2 mandatory injunction was issued directing the appellants/defendants to shift the electric poles on the boundary line of the fields of respondent/plaintiff. Aggrieved against the same, the present appellants have filed an appeal. The Court of the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, vide its judgment dated 3.9.1988, dismissed the appeal on the ground that the same was barred by limitation. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that there was a delay of one day in filing the appeal, whereas learned counsel for the respondent submits that there was a delay of five days. It is stated that 25.1.1988 was the last date for filing of the appeal. 26.1.1988 being a Republic Day, was holiday and the appeal was filed on 27.1.1988. It is submitted that the delay had occurred as sanction to file the appeal from the competent authority was received late in the evening on 25.1.1988. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the following substantial question of law arises for consideration of this Court:- “Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court should have liberally condoned the delay in filing the appeal especially when the same is filed by the Government Department?” To decline the relief, the lower Appellate Court has observed as under:- “...5. The suit in question was decided on Ist of December, 1987 and as per the admissions of Sh. Kimti Lal (AW-1) their office informed the legal section of the P.S.E.B. Patiala, vide letter dated Regular Second Appeal No. 2869 of 1988 3 20.1.1988 about the decision of the suit. From the endorsement on the back of the copy of the judgment and the decree sheet it is made out that application for the supply of the certified copy of the judgment was moved by Local Office of the P.S.E.B. only on 12.12.1987 and the copy was prepared and issued on 4.1.1988. Thus, not only sufficient time was consumed by the local office in moving the application for the supply of the copy of the decree sheet but also they sat over the documents for a period of about 16 days without moving into the matter. This inaction on the part of the local office of the P.S.E.B. Occasioned the delay in filing the appeal and no explanation whatsoever has been given as to why the copy of the judgment and decree sheet was not sent earlier to the office concerned. Under the circumstances by no stretch of imagination can it be urged that each day's delay has been explained in filing the appeal in this case. On the contrary, there is no explanation of delay in filing the appeal and I accordingly decide this issue against the appellant...” The trial Court had decreed the suit on 1.12.1987. An application for supply of certified copies of the judgment and decree was moved on 12.12.1987. The copies were prepared on 4.1.1988. It is stated that the appeal was to be filed on 25.1.1988. Since sanction to file Regular Second Appeal No. 2869 of 1988 4 the appeal was received late in the evening on 25.1.1988, the appeal could not be filed on that day and 26.1.1988 being Republic Day was holiday. This Court is of the view that if the delay, so occurred, is not condoned, it would be very harsh. Therefore, fair play and balance of equities demand that the delay in filing of the appeal ought to be condoned. Hence, the present appeal is accepted. The judgment and decree dated 3.9.1988, passed by the lower Appellate Court, are set aside. The matter is remitted back to the lower Appellate Court to decide the appeal, on merits, afresh. The appeal shall be decided within a period of three months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. However, if the decree has been executed, before filing of the present appeal, the lower Appellate Court will be well justified in dismissing the appeal having been rendered infructuous. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge December 9, 2010 “DK”