In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A. No. 1386 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: July 15, 2008 State of Haryana and others ... Appellants versus Nand Lal ... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Sudhir Makkar, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the appellants. A.N. Jindal, J (Oral) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 19.12.2007 passed by the learned District Judge, Yamuna Nagar. The appeal is also accompanied by an application for condonation of delay of 40 days in filing the appeal. The grounds set out in the application are that though the District Attorney as well as Secretary to Government of Haryana had declared the case not fit for appeal, but on the basis of the letter issued by the Advocate General, Haryana the appeal was preferred. As such, the delay being procedural one is liable to be condoned. The judgment in this case was passed on 19.12.2007, whereas, the appeal was filed on 1.5.2008. The plea raised in the application for condonation of delay is not supported by any documentary evidence. It was obligatory on the part of the appellants to explain each and every days' delay and in the absence of any evidence prima facie showing that delay stands sufficiently explained and was for reasonable cause, the same could not be condoned. Even otherwise, the case was decided by both the Courts below in favour of the appellants. However, the First Appellate Court had modified the decree while holding that unpaid part of the contract money due to the Government under the terms and conditions of the contract shall be recoverable from the contractor with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of default. The appellants are claiming interest @ 15% or R.S.A. No. 1386 of 2008 (O&M) -2- *** 24% per annum, which the First Appellate Court had declined to allow. The judgment further reveals that the original contract agreement was carried out @ 15% per annum but there is a cutting on the document and the words “24%” per annum has been inserted by hand but there are no signatures of the parties to the contract over the interpolation and it should be treated as unauthorised. The First Appellate Court further observed that recovery of interest @ 15% per annum could also be deemed to be penal because the respondent had indeed faced hardship from the month of April to December, 1998, therefore, I am also of the view that the appellants could not get undue benefit of the hardship suffered by the respondents. Consequently, awarding of interest @ 6% per annum to the appellants was justifiable on the ground of equity. Resultantly, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal also fails. July 15, 2008 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge