R. S. A. No. 4151 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 4151 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : December 01, 2011 Municipal Corporation, Faridabad .... Appellant Vs. Union of India .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Arvind Seth, Advocate for the applicant-appellant. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : C. M. No. 11990-C of 2011 : Allowed as prayed for. C. M. No. 11991-C of 2011 : For reasons mentioned in the application, which is accompanied by affidavit, delay of 70 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. C. M. No. 11992-C of 2011 : This is application by appellant Municipal Corporation, Faridabad (MCF) for condonation of delay of 1008 days in filing the R. S. A. No. 4151 of 2011 (O&M) 2 Regular Second Appeal. It is alleged in the application that copy of judgment dated 28.03.2008 of the lower appellate court was delivered on 22.04.2008 and it was put up before the higher authority to take decision regarding filing of Regular Second Appeal. After taking permission for filing of Regular Second Appeal, the instant appeal has been filed. In this process, there has been delay of 1008 days in filing the appeal, which is bona fide. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant-appellant and perused the case file. Counsel for the applicant-appellant reiterated the averments made in the application, as noticed herein before and relied on three judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court namely Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another vs. Mst. Katiji and others reported as AIR 1987 Supreme Court 1353, Special Tehsildar, Land Acquisition, Kerala vs. K. V. Ayisumma reported as (1996) 10 Supreme Court Cases 634 and State of Karnataka vs. Y. Moideen Kunhi (Dead) by LRs and others reported as (2009) 13 Supreme Court Cases 192 and contended that the Court should adopt liberal approach in the matter of condonation of delay. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention and the judgments cited at the bar, but I find myself unable to accept the aforesaid contention. There is long delay of more than 33 months in filing the R. S. A. No. 4151 of 2011 (O&M) 3 Regular Second Appeal, which is sought to be explained by vague and general averments that the process of taking decision to file the appeal and preparation of the appeal resulted in delay of 1008 days. The explanation is far from being satisfactory. Such long delay of more than 33 months cannot be condoned on the basis of such specious, vague and general averments. Even adopting pragmatic and liberal approach, such long delay is not liable to be condoned. In fact, if such long delay is condoned on non-existing grounds, the law of limitation would be rendered infructuous. It may also be added that the case does not involve any serious matter of public interest or public ex-chequer inasmuch as the dispute between defendant-appellant MCF and respondent-plaintiff Union of India (UOI) through Ministry of Railways is regarding levying of octroi by the defendant-appellant on the consignment of plaintiff-respondent UOI. No private person is going to be benefitted by impugned judgments and decrees of the courts below. Judgments cited by counsel for the appellant are completely distinguishable on facts. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no ground, much less sufficient ground, for condoning the long delay of 1008 days in filing the Regular Second Appeal. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. Main Appeal : The appeal is dismissed as time barred. A copy of this order be sent to Commissioner of Municipal R. S. A. No. 4151 of 2011 (O&M) 4 Corporation, Faridabad as well as Principal Secretary, Urban Local Bodies Department, Government of Haryana to look into the lapse of the appellant Corporation in filing the appeal after long delay of 1008 days. December 01, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE