C.W.P No.937 of 1987 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : July 22, 2010 1) C.W.P No.937 of 1987 (O&M) Anokh Singh vs The Joint Director Panchayats, Punjab & Ors. 2) C.W.P No.944 of 1987 (O&M) Subah Singh vs The Joint Director Panchayats, Punjab & Ors. 3) C.W.P No.945 of 1987 (O&M) Darbara Singh vs The Joint Director Panchayats, Punjab & ors. *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. M.L.Saini, Advocate for respondent No.3. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This order shall dispose of CWP Nos.937, 944 and 945 of 1987, as they arise from the same impugned order(s). For the sake of convenience, facts are being extracted from CWP No.937 of 1987. C.M No.8072 of 2010 C.M is allowed and the main writ petition is taken up today. C.W.P No.937 of 1987 C.W.P No.937 of 1987 (O&M) ::2:: This petition has been filed against the order dated 15.7.1982 (Annexure P-1) whereby the petitioner was ordered to be ejected from the land in dispute, and the order dated 29.8.1986 (Annexure P-3) whereby the application for restoration of the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order (Annexure P-1) was dismissed in default. The reasons which weighed with respondent No.1 in dismissing the application for restoration the appeal are based on certain findings of fact. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that earlier the petitioner had filed CWP No.3379 of 1985 challenging an earlier dismissal of the application wherein the matter was remanded back to respondent No.1 for re-deciding the application for restoration. It would, thus, be seen that for the last 25 years, the petitioner is agitating that his appeal be heard on merits. He has further stated that Courts should take liberal approach in condoning the delay. In this regard, he has relied upon Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another vs Mst. Katiji and others, 1987 AIR (SC) 1353, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows :- “1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 3. “Every day's delay must be explained” does not C.W.P No.937 of 1987 (O&M) ::3:: mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay ? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. 4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. 5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. 6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.” Even if there was some negligence on the part of the petitioner/counsel in not appearing on the relevant date, yet keeping in view the importance of the stakes involved for the petitioner, in my opinion it would be in the interest of justice if a direction is given to respondent No.1 to decide the appeal of the petitioner on merits. Ordered accordingly. Counsel for respondent No.3 has, however, argued that for all these years, the petitioner has enjoyed the property of the Gram Panchayat without any payment and that there was also no order for securing the C.W.P No.937 of 1987 (O&M) ::4:: mesne profits. In my opinion, the interest of the Gram Panchayat can be adequately safeguarded by putting a condition that the petitioner would give security for mesne profits upto date, which would be a condition precedent and accepted after hearing the respondent-Gram Panchayat. Consequently, the impugned order, dated 29.8.1986 is quashed, and these writ petitions are partly allowed with no order as to costs. Parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before respondent No.1 on 19.8.2010. As the main petitions have since been partly allowed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) July 22, 2010. JUDGE `kk'