In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 788 of 2002 Date of decision: July 14, 2009 Surjit Singh .. Petitioner Vs. Ludhiana Improvement Trust and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. K.S. Boparai, Advocate for the petitioner. A.N. Jindal, J This revision petition is directed against the order dated 17.8.2001, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, whereby, he dismissed the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The judgment and decree was passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Ludhiana on 29.1.1997. In the ordinary course, the limitation for filing the appeal was to expire within 30 days after excluding the period spent in obtaining the certified copy of the order. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner was in U.S.A. at the time of the decision of the suit and he returned to India on 13.1.1998 and fell ill on account of acute depression suffered by him, therefore, he remained confined to bed for treatment from 16.1.1998 to 8.5.1998. After curing from the disease he obtained certified copy of the judgment and decree on 11.5.1998 and the appeal was filed on 21.5.1998. The trial court took it very seriously and framed issues as under :- 1. Whether there are sufficient grounds to condone the delay?OPA. 2. Relief. After recording evidence of both the parties, the application was dismissed so as the appeal. None has turned up to argue the matter on behalf of the respondent. Argument heard. Civil Revision No. 788 of 2002 -2- *** Judgment in the case was passed on 29.1.1997 and at that time, the petitioner was not in India. He returned to India on 13.1.1998 and came to know about the judgment but thereafter fell ill. He has led sufficient evidence for not filing the appeal within time. He has stated that he remained confined to bed due to depression and he was fully recovered on 8.5.1998 and thereafter the appeal was preferred on 21.5.1998 after obtaining copy of the judgment from the court. As such, it appears that he has fully explained the delay in filing the appeal. The Lower Appellate Court, instead of applying the principle of “audi alteram partum” and without taking into consideration that if the appeal is thrown away merely on the ground of this fully explained delay, then the meritorious claim of the petitioner would go unheard. Reliance has been placed on the judgment delivered in case Sonerao Sadashivrao Patil & Anr. vs. Godawanbai, 1999 (3) Civil Court Cases 120, wherein it has been held that too much rigour of the law is not justice but the denial of it. He has also referred to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in case Collector Land Acquisition Anantna and another vs. Smt. Katiji and others, AIR 1987 SC 1353, wherein some cardinal principles were laid down while condoning the delay, which are as under :- 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 days delay must be explained does not 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 Civil Revision No. 788 of 2002 -3- *** non deliberate delay. 5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of malafides. 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.” No doubt, the petitioner was to explain the delay in filing the appeal, but the law of limitation in such cases should be construed liberally so as to take care that the cause of justice may not be defeated. Each and every day's delay should not be expected to be explained strictly. No appellant would deliberately delay the filing of the appeal and his bona- fides could be assessed from the circumstances such as matter involved in the case, the value of his rights and the zeal with which he tried to prove the delay. The facts and the evidence led in proof of the fact that approach of the Lower Appellate Court in dismissing the application is some what misconceived as the court exhausted three valuable years in deciding the application during which period it could decide the appeal itself on merits. Having scrutinized the records of the case, it transpires that there are sufficient grounds to condone the delay. The Lower Appellate Court has not appreciated the evidence in the right perspective. As such, interference at my end has become essential. Resultantly, I accept the revision petition and set aside the impugned order and the appellate court is directed to proceed in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Lower Appellate Court on 25.8.2009. July 14, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge