IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7699 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: April 19, 2011. Haryana Urban Development Authority and another. ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus Pawan Kumar. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Siddharth Batra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Babbar Bhan, Advocate for the respondent. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed against judgment dated 06.03.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Panchkula vide which application filed by petitioners/appellants for condonation of delay of 15 days in filing the appeal was rejected and as a consequence thereof appeal filed by petitioners/appellants was also dismissed. CR No.7699 of 2010 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned first appellate Court. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that there was only 15 days delay in filing the appeal and that the same was due to official technicalities as petitioner/appellant is a Government organization and some time was taken in getting the requisite sanction of the authorities to file appeal. On the other hand, it has been stated by learned counsel for the respondent that delay due to official formalities cannot be said to be sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Law on the point of condonation of delay is very liberal. Law is well settled that liberal approach should be taken by Court while dealing with application under Section 5 of Limitation Act especially when the party is a government organization. The government cannot be placed at par with private persons. 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, law on the point of condonation of delay in filing the appeal has been summed up 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 2 CR No.7699 of 2010 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 meaningful manner which sub serves 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 3 CR No.7699 of 2010 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, in view of the legal proposition held by Hon'ble Apex Court in aforementioned case, I am of the view that learned Additional District Judge, Panchkula has committed illegality in rejecting the application filed by petitioner for condonation of 15 days’ delay in filing the first appeal. Hence, in view of these facts, the present revision petition is accepted and the impugned order is set aside. As a consequence thereof, application filed by petitioners/ appellants for condonation of delay of 15 days in filing the appeal is allowed. Learned first appellate Court is directed to register the appeal at its original number and decide the same on merit expeditiously. Both the parties are directed to appear before learned first appellate Court on 23.05.2011. Disposed of accordingly. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) April 19, 2011. JUDGE 'om' 4