IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 4046 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: November 22, 2011. Jagdip Singh ...... APPELLANT Versus Smt. Poonam. ...... RESPONDENT CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Munish Behl, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for the respondent. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M. No.12043-C of 2010. Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. CM No.12044-C of 2011 The present regular second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 18.09.2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar dismissing the appeal filed by present appellant-defendant against the judgment and decree dated 16.04.2009 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amritsar, vide which the application filed by present respondent-plaintiff under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and RSA No.4046 of 2011(O&M) Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter called as the ‘Act’) was allowed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned courts below. It may be mentioned at the very outset that the present appeal has not been filed within the prescribed period of limitation. The appeal is accompanied by an application filed under Section 5 read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 274 days in filing the present appeal. The application has been contested by the respondent-plaintiff. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant- appellant that instead of filing appeal, present applicant-appellant filed Civil Revision No.6281 of 2009 before this Court against the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below and however, the same was withdrawn on 15.09.2010 and after withdrawing the same, present appeal has been filed. Hence, it is contended that the delay has occurred as instead of appeal, civil revision was filed. On the other hand, it has been vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the respondent-wife that the present application and the appeal have been filed with mala fide intention just to harass the respondent-wife. It has been contended that there is no plea that revision petition was filed due to any wrong advice of counsel. Rather, it is stated that intentionally revision petition was filed and after many months, the same was withdrawn and thereafter, the present appeal was filed. It has been contended that no amount of maintenance has been paid by present applicant-appellant to the respondent-wife and even the interim maintenance was not paid during the pendency of the litigation and that the applicant- 2 RSA No.4046 of 2011(O&M) appellant has been unnecessarily dragging respondent-wife into lengthy litigation, whereas she has no source of income to maintain herself. It has also been contended that even there is nothing on merits in this appeal as no question of law what to talk of substantial question arises for decision of this appeal. It has been contended that the defence of present applicant- appellant was struck off by learned trial Court and that no evidence was produced by the present applicant-appellant. Hence, the present appeal is nothing but the delaying tactics to delay the payment of maintenance awarded by the Courts below. Law on the point of condonation of delay has been settled in a recent judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and another, 2010 (2) RCR (Civil) 284: 2010(2) RAJ 205: 2010(2) JT 389: 2010(5) SCC 459: 2010(88) AIC 220: 2010(2) ICC 595, wherein it has been held that the Courts should be liberal in condoning the delay of shorter period, whereas a stricter approach should be applied where the delay is inordinate in filing the appeal. The relevant paragraph of the same reads as under:- “8. We have considered the respective submissions. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The legislature does not prescribe limitation with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. To put it differently, the law of limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed for redress of the legal injury. At the same time, the courts are bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is shown for not availing the remedy within the stipulated time. The expression "sufficient cause" employed in Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 and similar other statutes is elastic enough to enable the courts to apply the law in a 3 RSA No.4046 of 2011(O&M) meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice. Although, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in dealing with the applications for condonation of delay, this Court has justifiably advocated adoption of a liberal approach in condoning the delay of short duration and a stricter approach where the delay is inordinate - Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 2 SCC 107, N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy 1999(2)RCR (Civil) 578: (1998) 7 SCC 123 and Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil 2001(3) RCR(Civil) 831: (2001) 9 SCC 106. In dealing with the applications for condonation of delay filed on behalf of the State and its agencies/instrumentalities this Court has, while emphasizing that same yardstick should be applied for deciding the applications for condonation of delay filed by private individuals and the State, observed that certain amount of latitude is not impermissible in the latter case because the State represents collective cause of the community and the decisions are taken by the officers/agencies at a slow pace and encumbered process of pushing the files from table to table consumes considerable time causing delay - G. Ramegowda v. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer 1988(1) RRR 555: (1988) 2 SCC 142, State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani 1996(2) RRR 82: (1996) 3 SCC 132, State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra 1996 (2) SCT 712: (1996) 9 SCC 309, State of Bihar v. Ratan Lal Sahu (1996) 10 SCC 635, State of Nagaland v. Lipok Ao 200;5:(2) RCR Criminal 414: 2005(2): RCR (Civil) 375: 2005 (2) Apex Criminal 75: (2005) 3 SCC 752, and State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ahmed Jaan 2008 (4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 119: 2008(4) RCR(Civil) 126: 2008(4) SCT 25: 2008(2) RCR(Rent) 234: 2008(5) RAJ 214: (2008) 14 SCC 582.” Hence, if the above said proposition of law is applied to the present case, act of the present applicant-appellant in filing the revision petition instead of filing the appeal cannot be said to be a bona fide one. The revision was withdrawn vide order dated 15.09.2010 by the counsel for the applicant-appellant on his own by making statement that the regular second appeal is maintainable and no revision is maintainable and thereafter, the present appeal has been filed. Even after filing of this appeal 4 RSA No.4046 of 2011(O&M) or filing of the earlier revision petition, no maintenance was paid. Even order of this Court passed on the last date of hearing i.e. 18.10.2011 to clear all the arrears of maintenance after adjusting maintenance, if any, received by the respondent-wife in proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has not been complied with. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any cause what to talk of sufficient cause is made out for condoning the delay of 274 days in filing the present appeal. The application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit. RSA No.4046 of 2010. As a consequence thereof, the present regular second appeal is also dismissed as having not been filed within the prescribed period of limitation. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) November 22, 2011 JUDGE Sachin M. 5