IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No. 2852 of 1994 Date of decision: 19-1-2009 Kehar Singh … Appellant versus Laj Partap amd others … Respondents THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. S.K.Yadav, Advocate. … ARVIND KUMAR, J: The present appellant, Kehar Singh (since deceased and now represented by his legal representatives) was one of the defendants in the suit for recovery. Suit was decreed against him on 8.9.1981. He filed an appeal. There was a delay of two days in filing the appeal. First appellate court had not condoned the delay and dismissed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and consequently the appeal vide judgment and decree dated 18.8.1994. Hence, the present second appeal. Heard. There was a marginal delay of two days in filing the appeal. The expression “every day's delay” does not mean that a pedantic approach should be adopted. The expression “sufficient cause” is adequately elastic. The Court is to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice, that being the life-purposes for the existence of the institution of Courts. Court should not adopt an injustice inoriented approach in rejecting the application for condonation of delay of only two days which does not smack of mala fide. For the reasons recorded hereinbefore, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court is set aside and the case is remanded to the court of the District Judge,Narnaul, who after condoning the delay, shall decide the appeal on merits within three months from the date of appearance of parties R.S.A. No. 2852 of 1994 -2- before him, without being influenced by the observations made hereinabove. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the District Judge, Narnaul, on 5.2.2009. ( ARVIND KUMAR ) January 19, 2009 JUDGE JS