RSA No.4571 of 2009 (O & M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.4571 of 2009 (O & M) Date of Decision: 09.09.2010. Bhim Singh .....Appellant Versus Dhan Singh ……Respondent Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr.Nonish Kumar, Advocate for the appellant. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) CM No.13691-C of 2009 Allowed as prayed for. CM No.13692-C of 2009 For reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 42 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. CM NO.13694-C of 2009 Deficient Court fee is said to have been affixed. Accordingly, application is allowed. CM No.13693-C of 2009 This is application by appellant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 302 days in filing the appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant-appellant and perused the case file. Paragraph 2 of the application which contains the ground for condonation of delay is reproduced hereunder:- “ That the delay is filing in appeal is occurred due to the fact that the copy of judgment and decrees passed in RSA No.4571 of 2009 (O & M) -2- appeal was taken by the appellant and same was misplaced by him, then he again applied for the certified copy of the judgment and decrees. So due to above reasons the delay has occurred.” Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant also contended accordingly that copy of judgment and decree passed by the lower Appellate Court, taken by the appellant, was misplaced and he had to apply again for certified copy of judgment and decree resulting in delay in filing the instant second appeal. This plea of the appellant even if taken at face value, does not explain the long delay of 10 months in filing the appeal. Judgment of the lower appellate Court is dated 27.02.2008. If certified copy of the said judgment obtained earlier by the appellant had been misplaced within limitation period, he should have applied for fresh copy of the judgment immediately, when the earlier certified copy was misplaced. However, perusal of certified copy of judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court annexed with the instant second appeal reveals that application for obtaining the said copy was moved on 20.12.2008 i.e almost 10 months after the passing of the said judgment. There is no explanation why application for obtaining certified copy of said judgment was not moved earlier. On the contrary, if certified copy of the said judgment obtained earlier was misplaced sometime in December, 2008 only i.e sometime before second copy was applied for on 20.12.2008, then limitation period for filing the appeal had already expired, when the earlier certified copy was allegedly misplaced. Not much time was consumed in preparation of second certified copy of impugned judgment as the RSA No.4571 of 2009 (O & M) -3- same was prepared on 24.12.2008 after the appellant had applied for the same on 20.12.2008. Consequently, obtaining of second certified copy of the judgment did not result in any significant delay. In addition to the aforesaid, even after certified copy of judgment of the lower appellate Court was prepared on 24.12.2008 and delivery thereof was taken on 06.01.2009, the instant second appeal was not filed immediately. The appeal was actually filed on 25.03.2009 and there is not even a whisper in the application for this long delay of more than 2 ½ months in filing the appeal even after obtaining second certified copy of the judgment of the lower appellate Court. It is thus manifest that appellant has miserably failed to make out a case for condonation of long delay of 302 days in filing the appeal. It is correct that Courts adopt liberal approach in condonation of delay in filing the appeal. However, liberal approach cannot be extended to an extent as to make the law of limitation completely redundant and futile. If long delay of 302 days is condoned without there being any reason much less sufficient reason for condoning the same, the law of limitation would be rendered futile. This cannot be done. For the reasons aforesaid, I do not find any sufficient ground for condoning the long delay of 302 days in filing the instant second appeal. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. Main Appeal. The appeal is dismissed as time barred. 09.09.2010. ( L. N. MITTAL ) A. Kaundal JUDGE