RSA No. 497 of 2010. 13.5.2011 Present: Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate with Ms. Ambika Kotwal, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. N.K.Thakur, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 12. CMP No. 1029 of 2010 and CMP(M) No. 1199 of 2010. CMP No. 1029 of 2010 is an application under Chapter VII Rules 2 and 3 of H.P. High Court (Appellate Side)Rules, 1997 read with O. 41 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking leave of the court to pursue the appeal. CMP(M) No. 1199 of 2010 is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. It has been stated that learned first appellate court has decided the appeal on 31.5.2004. Pritam Chand predecessor of the applicant was an old illiterate man, who did not know the intricacies of law and was bed ridden. The applicant himself was involved in an accident in the year 1997 and sustained 60% disability of right upper and lower limb. The son of the applicant was in Border Security Forces, who was injured by gunshot while on duty on 7.8.2007 and is totally handicapped and bed ridden. He is paraplegic and cannot move. 2. The applicant came to know that appeal has been allowed by the lower appellate court only in the last week of August 2010 when non-applicants threatened the applicant that they had a finding in their favour and they would dispossess the applicant from the land in question. The applicant consulted local advocate, who apprised him the factum of dismissal of appeal. - 2 - 3. The applicant had applied for copy of judgement on 4.9.2010, which was received on the same day. The applicant had no money, but with the help of one relative, he came to Shimla on 19.9.2010 for filing the appeal. It has been stated that applicant prepared the appeal with promptitude and diligence. The appeal is within limitation from the date of supply of copy of impugned judgement, but the appeal is barred by five years and four months from the date of impugned judgement, decree. In these circumstances, the applicant has prayed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 4. The application for condonation of delay has been contested by the respondents by filing reply. It has been stated that petitioner is trying to raise the emotions of the court. The applicant has not made out any case for condonation of delay. The alleged accident of the applicant took place about 14 years back. The son of the applicant also sustained injury long time back. The applicant has not explained the delay of more than five years by explaining sufficient cause in filing the belated appeal. The respondents have prayed for dismissal of the application. 5. I have heard he learned counsel for the parties. On behalf of the applicant it has been submitted that applicant was not a party in the lower appellate court. He came to know the decision of the lower appellate court in the last week of August 2010. Thereafter, the applicant took immediate steps for filing the appeal, which was filed on 23.9.2010. It has been contended that applicant himself is - 3 - 60% disabled and his son is bed-ridden and paraplegic. The prayer has been made for taking liberal view for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The learned counsel for applicant has relied Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Limited vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and another (2010) 5 SCC 459 in support of his submissions for condonation of delay. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that application is hopelessly time barred. The applicant allegedly met with an accident in the year 1997, his son also met with an accident according to the applicant in the year 2007. The appeal was decided by the first appellate court on 31.5.2004, appeal and applications were filed on 23.9.2010. He has submitted that even if liberal view is taken, still no case has been made out by the applicant for condonation of delay. He has relied Balwant Singh (Dead) vs. Jagdish Singh & Ors. AIR 2010 SC 3043. 7. It is the case of the applicant that appeal was decided on 31.5.2004. He met with an accident in the year 1997 and sustained 60% disability of right upper and lower limb, his son met with an accident by gunshot while on duty on 7.8.2007. The father of the applicant died on 2.2.2010, the appeal and applications were filed on 23.9.2010. The applicant has stated something about himself and his son for not filing the appeal in time. He has stated that he came to know of the judgement of the lower appellate court in the last week of August 2010. Pritam Singh father of the applicant was contesting respondent in the lower appellate court. - 4 - It has been stated in the application that father of the applicant was an old illiterate man, he did not know the intricacies of law and was bed ridden. There is no averment in the application when the father of the applicant became bed ridden. There is also no averment that father of the applicant was not aware of the decision dated 31.5.2004. 8. The limitation for filing second appeal started from 31.5.2004. The inaction of the father of the applicant to file second appeal against the judgement, decree dated 31.5.2004 is nothing but acceptance of judgement, decree dated 31.5.2004 by the father of the applicant and that is why he did not file the appeal against the decision dated 31.5.2004. When the father of the applicant allowed the decision dated 31.5.2004 to become final then the plea of the applicant for condonation of delay in filing the appeal cannot be entertained without explaining the delay on the part of his father for not filing the appeal against the impugned judgement. There is no whisper in the application why the father of the applicant had not filed the appeal within limitation period and after limitation within certain reasonable time. 9. In Oriental Aroma (supra), the Supreme Court has held that although no hard and fast rule can be laid down in dealing with the applications for condonation of delay. The Supreme Court has advocated adoption of a liberal approach in condoning the delay of short duration and a stricter approach where the delay is inordinate. In the present case, the delay is not of short - 5 - duration, but it is of more than five years. Therefore, the application of the applicant is required to be dealt with by stricter approach. 10. In Balwant Singh (supra), it has been held that if a party thoroughly negligent in implementing its rights and remedies, it will be equally unfair to deprive the other party of a valuable right that has accrued to it in law as a result of his acting vigilantly. It has also been held that even if the term “sufficient cause” has to receive liberal construction, it must squarely fall within the concept of reasonable time and proper conduct of the concerned party. Justice must be done to both the parties equally. Liberal construction cannot be equated with doing injustice to the other party. 11. The sufficient cause should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice, when the delay is not on account of any dilatory tactics, want of bona fides, deliberate inaction or negligence on the part of the party. It is not the case of the applicant that he was bed-ridden. In fact, the application is supported by an affidavit, which was sworn by the applicant at Shimla. This indicates that applicant was in a position to move about, even if, it is assumed that he had 60% disability of right upper and lower limb on account of accident which took place in the year 1997. The son of the applicant sustained gunshot injury on 7.8.2007 and by that time the limitation for filing the appeal was already over and father of the applicant was also alive. Thus seen - 6 - from every angle, the applicant has miserably failed to establish sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The application is not bonafide. There is no merit in the application, resultantly, the application is dismissed, so also CMP No. 1029 of 2010 and CMP No. 1028 of 2010. RSA No. 497 of 2010. 12. In view of dismissal of CMP(M) No. 1199 of 2010, no order is required, therefore, appeal stands also disposed of accordingly. May 13, 2011. ( Kuldip Singh ), (Hem) Judge.