C.R. No. 4190 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 4190 of 2009 Date of Decision: 28.07.2009 Karimu Deen son of Sh. Hakimu Deen r/o village Amadalpur, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar. ... Revision-Petitioner Versus Mohd. Irfan son of Mohd. Yusuf, r/o village Amadalpur, Tehsil Jgadhri, District Yamuna Nagar. ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. Sanjay Verma, Advocate, for the revision-petitioner. SHAM SUNDER, J. * * * * This revision-petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for setting aside the order dated 11.04.2009 (Annexure P4), passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar, at Jagadhri, vide which, the application filed by the respondent, for condonation of delay of 36 days, in filing the appeal, was allowed, has been instituted by the revision-petitioner. 2. The facts, relevant for the decision of this petition, are that, an C.R. No. 4190 of 2009 2 appeal, against the judgement and decree dated 24.01.2008, passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagadhri, in Civil Suit No. 7 of 2007, titled as 'Mohd. Irfan Vs. Karimu Deen', was filed, by Mohd. Irfan, appellant. Alongwith the appeal, an application for condonation of delay of 36 days, on account of the ill health of the applicant/appellant, and wrong advice of his Counsel, was also moved. It was stated that the delay, on his part, was neither intentional, nor deliberate, but on account of the reasons beyond his control. Accordingly, prayer for condonation of delay was made. The said application was duly supported by an affidavit. 3. Karimu Deen (respondent therein), now petitioner, filed reply, wherein, it was stated that no sufficient ground, was made out, for condonation of delay of 36 days, in filing the appeal. It was further stated that the trees standing in the suit land, had already been cut, and removed by him. 4. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the record of the case, the Appellate Court, condoned the delay of 36 days, in filing the appeal, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 500/-. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision-petition, has been filed by the revision-petitioner. 6. I have heard the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, and have gone through the record of the case, carefully. 7. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, submitted that, there was no sufficient cause, whatsoever, for condonation of delay of 36 days, in filing the appeal. He further submitted that the appellant, in the First Appellate Court, was required, to explain each day's delay, in filing the appeal, but the same was not satisfactorily explained by him. He further C.R. No. 4190 of 2009 3 submitted that, under these circumstances, the order, rendered by the First Appellate Court, condoning the delay of 36 days, in filing the appeal, was illegal and liable to be set aside. 8. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, raised by the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, in my considered opinion, the revision-petition, deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter. It is settled principle of law, that liberal approach, should be adopted, in the matter of condonation of delay, as the lis, should normally be decided, on merits, rather than by default. Even otherwise, the procedure is, in the ultimate, the hand-maid of justice, meant to sub-serve the ends thereof, than to thwart the same. The procedural wrangles, cannot be allowed to stay, in the way of grant of substantial justice. When substantial justice, and the procedural wrangles are pitted, against each other, then the former will prevail over the latter. In Punjab State Electricity Board and another Vs. Pritpal Kaur and others, 2007(4) LJR, 470 and Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag and another Vs. Mst. Katiji and others, AIR 1987 (SC), 1353, the principle of law, laid down, was to the effect, that liberal approach, in condoning the delay, be adopted, as by condonation of delay, the party gets right to have the matter adjudicated on merits. It was further observed that 'every-day's delay, must be explained', does not mean that a pedantic approach, should be made. The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense and in a pragmatic manner. The Court below, in my opinion, exercised discretion, in condoning the delay of 36 days, in filing the appeal, in a judicious manner. The discretion, exercised by the Court below, cannot be said to be, in any way, arbitrary or capricious. No infirmity, in the order impugned, could be C.R. No. 4190 of 2009 4 pointed out, by the Counsel for the revision-petitioner. The order impugned, does not suffer, from any illegality, material irregularity, or perversity, warranting interference, by this Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The same is, thus, liable to be upheld. 9. For the reasons recorded above, the revision-petition, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed. 28.07.2009 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE