IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.1051 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 11.3.2010 Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Kaithal and others ....Appellants Versus Phulla ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.Siddharth Batra, Advocate for the appellants. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. C.M.No.3109-C of 2010 For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 2 days in filing the appeal is condoned. C.M.No.3110-C of 2010 in/and R.S.A.No.1051 of 2010 The appellants have impugned the judgment of the first Appellate Court dated 20.11.2009 by which their appeal has been dismissed on the point of limitation. It was contended in the appeal that the delay was unintentional and the appellants were not aware of the proceedings. The Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kaithal had determined the controversy before him on 2.6.2006. Thereafter the execution was filed by the decree-holder on 23.3.2007. The appellants contested R.S.A.No.1051 of 2010 (O&M) -2- these proceedings by filing objections thereto. In fact the objections were filed on 8.8.2008 and the same were dismissed on 11.9.2008. The appeal was filed on 29.7.2009 and it was pleaded therein that the certified copies of the impugned judgments and decree-sheets were received on 21.7.2009 from the Court and therefore the delay has occurred. The first Appellate Court did not accept the explanation and held that the delay was due to the negligence of the appellants and dismissed the appeal. In the Regular Second Appeal learned counsel for the appellants contended that the impugned judgment has resulted in gross injustice to the appellants. He has contended that the delay caused in filing the first appeal was unintentional and for the reasons beyond their control. He further contended that the delinquent officials have been charge-sheeted. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants. There is no doubt that the law of limitation has to be construed liberally so as not to thwart the interest of justice but at the same time the person in whose favour such equitable relief is granted has to show his bona fides. If the facts of the case are to be seen, then it reveals that the appellants were actively participating in the execution proceedings which were initiated after the passing of the decree. The conduct of the appellants in filing the objections after more than one year reflected the apathy which became more pronounced and crystalized when they filed the appeal after almost three years of the passing of the decree despite the fact that they were conscious of the judgment and decree passed against them. To say R.S.A.No.1051 of 2010 (O&M) -3- that they were not aware of the proceedings and certified copies of the judgments and decree-sheets were received after a month would therefore be grossly unpalatable. There is thus no infirmity in the findings recorded by the first Appellate Court who has dismissed the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the stay application is also dismissed. 11.3.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss