1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No. 5428-C of 2009 and Regular Second Appeal No. 1844 of 2009 Date of Decision: 14.5.2009 *** Ram Sarup & Ors. ..APPELLANTS VS. Bhagwana & Anr. ..RESPONDENTS with CM No. 5436-C of 2009 and Regular Second Appeal No. 1846 of 2009 Date of Decision: 14.5.2009 *** Ram Sarup & Ors. ..APPELLANTS VS. Ganga Ram ..RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Maharaj Singh, Advocate for the applicant-appellants. *** By way of instant appeals, the plaintiffs have come up in this second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 19.10.1995 passed by the first appellate Court below, by virtue of which their suit has been ordered to be dismissed while setting aside the judgment and decree of the learned trial court, decreeing their suit for pre-emption. The case of the plaintiffs, which they put forth by filing two separate suits, was that being co-sharers over the suit land, they have got superior right to acquire/ purchase the same and they be permitted to pre- empt the sale made in respect of the suit land by the co-owners in favour of defendants, who are strangers. The learned trial court held that the plaintiffs are having superior right to pre-empt the sale of the suit land over and above 2 the respondents being the co-sharers and accordingly directed the plaintiffs to pay Rs.4575.25 p., to the defendants which they admittedly incurred on the registration and execution of the sale deed. The vendees, aggrieved with the same, filed separate appeals and the first appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 19.10.1995 allowed the same and set aside the judgment of the trial court by observing that with the amendment in the Pre-emption Act, the right of a co-sharer to pre-empt the same has been taken away and the suit of the plaintiff, as noticed above, was dismissed. Hence this regular second appeal has been filed. Along with the appeal, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has also been filed and the delay of 4807 days in filing the instant regular second appeal has been sought to be condoned. It has been averred by the appellants in the application that the delay was neither intentional nor willful, but nothing has been mentioned in the application as to what prompt them not to prefer the appeal before this Court within the time prescribed or at any early time against the impugned judgment and decree rendered by the first appellate Court. The applicants even cannot derive any benefit from the fact that another regular second appeal, preferred by them, in relation to the adjacent land, as mentioned in the application for condonation of delay itself, is pending. Reliance can be placed on the case of Jangli Vs. State of Haryana 2007(2) RCR (Civil) 67. The applicants have to satisfy the Court as to their bonafide in not filing the appeal in time, in the present case. But for all these years to come, they kept satisfied with what was observed by the appellate Court below and all of a sudden they woke up after the decision of alleged connected regular second appeal. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the filing of appeal at this stage lacks bona fides. Rather by their own act and conduct they have permitted to cause such a colossal delay of 4807 days in filing the appeal. It has always been the endeavor of this Court to hear the parties on merits, but in the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellants have no right of being heard on merits and their negligence cannot be ignored. Although the Hon'ble Supreme Court has recommended that pedantic approach should not be made in the matter, but in the cases where there is huge delay, such a discretion cannot be exercised as it would become mockery of law of 3 limitation. No person should be allowed to take undue advantage of such a concession. The Courts should also not lose sight of the fact that by not taking steps within the time prescribed, a valuable right accrued to the other party should not be defeated in a routine like manner. Emphasis is from P.K. Ramachandran Vs. State of Kerala and another, 1998(3) PLR 605 (SC). Thus, without there being any worth explanation, this Court finds no justification for condoning the delay of 4807 days in filing the instant appeal as it would be unfair to the defendant-respondents to re-open the settled issue once again. Accordingly, the instant applications as well as the appeals stand dismissed. Copy of this order be placed on the connected RSA No.1846 of 2009. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE May 14,2009 Jiten