IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Review application No.53-C of 2011(O&M) in Regular Second Appeal No.4825 of 2003 Date of Decision: December 12, 2011. Bhana Ram. ...... APPELLANT Versus Ram Chander and others ...... RESPONDENT CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. S.K. Jain, Advocate for the applicant-appellant. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present review application has been filed for reviewing the judgment dated 25.01.2007 passed by this Court dismissing the regular second appeal filed by present applicant in limine. The review application has not been filed within the prescribed period of limitation. There is delay of 1560 days in filing the review application. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant-appellant that after obtaining certified copy of the judgment dated 25.01.2007, the applicant-appellant had handed over all the documents to one of his relatives at Delhi in order to seek the opinion from some counsel at the Hon’ble Supreme Court regarding the fitness of the case for filing of the Special Leave Petition and however, his relative did not give him any definite reply regarding filing of any SLP in the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Rather, he told him in January, 2011 that entire brief has been lost by him and no appeal has been filed. Further contended that he obtained another certified copy of the judgment and he again tried to find out as to whether the SLP has been filed and however, no SLP was filed and thereafter, he consulted a lawyer and filed the present review application. The plea taken is very vague one. Even the applicant has not mentioned the name of his relative. There is no affidavit of that relative. Law on the point of condonation of delay has been settled in a recent judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and another, 2010(2) RCR (Civil) 284: 2010(2) RAJ 205: 2010(2) JT 389: 2010(5) SCC 459: 2010(88) AIC 220: 2010(2) ICC 595, wherein it has been held that the Courts should be liberal in condoning the delay of shorter period, whereas a stricter approach should be applied where the delay is inordinate in filing the appeal. The relevant paragraph of the same reads as under:- “8. We have considered the respective submissions. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The legislature does not prescribe limitation with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. To put it differently, the law of limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed for redress of the legal injury. At the same time, the courts are bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is shown for not availing the remedy within the stipulated time. The expression "sufficient cause" employed in Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 and similar other statutes is elastic enough to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice. Although, 2 no hard and fast rule can be laid down in dealing with the applications for condonation of delay, this Court has justifiably advocated adoption of a liberal approach in condoning the delay of short duration and a stricter approach where the delay is inordinate - Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 2 SCC 107, N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy 1999(2)RCR (Civil) 578: (1998) 7 SCC 123 and Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil 2001(3) RCR(Civil) 831: (2001) 9 SCC 106. In dealing with the applications for condonation of delay filed on behalf of the State and its agencies/instrumentalities this Court has, while emphasizing that same yardstick should be applied for deciding the applications for condonation of delay filed by private individuals and the State, observed that certain amount of latitude is not impermissible in the latter case because the State represents collective cause of the community and the decisions are taken by the officers/agencies at a slow pace and encumbered process of pushing the files from table to table consumes considerable time causing delay - G. Ramegowda v. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer 1988(1) RRR 555: (1988) 2 SCC 142, State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani 1996(2) RRR 82: (1996) 3 SCC 132, State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra 1996(2) SCT 712: (1996) 9 SCC 309, State of Bihar v. Ratan Lal Sahu (1996) 10 SCC 635, State of Nagaland v. Lipok Ao 200;5:(2) RCR Criminal 414: 2005(2): RCR (Civil) 375: 2005 (2) Apex Criminal 75: (2005) 3 SCC 752, and State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ahmed Jaan 2008(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 119: 2008(4) RCR (Civil) 126: 2008(4) SCT 25: 2008(2) RCR(Rent) 234: 2008(5) RAJ 214: (2008) 14 SCC 582.” The delay in the present case is inordinate one. No cause what to talk of ‘sufficient cause’ is shown to condone the delay of 1560 days in filing the review application. The application for condonation of delay in filing the review application is dismissed being devoid of any merit. As a consequence thereof, the present review application is also dismissed as having not been filed within the prescribed period of limitation. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) December 12, 2011 JUDGE Sachin M. 3