IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.M. No. 1075-C of 2006 C.M. No. 8172-C of 2006 and R.S.A. No. 532 of 2006 Date of decision: 22-1-2009 Pritam Kaur … Appellant versus Bharpur Singh and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Ms. Aarti Gupta, Advocate, for the applicant-appellant. … ARVIND KUMAR, J: Appellant before this Court was one of the plaintiffs who has been non-suited by the Courts below in a suit for possession. Along with the appeal, an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking condonation of delay of 565 days in refiling the appeal, has been filed merely on the ground that the clerk of the counsel had forgotten the case in the process of shifting the Office of the counsel from upstairs to down-stairs. The appeal is hopelessly time-barred. Under Rule 5, Chapter I, Part A of Volume V of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules and orders, a maximum period of 40 days in refiling the appeal has been prescribed after removal of objections. However, a liberal approach has been recommended by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgments. Even in cases where an application under Section 151 of the Code has been filed seeking condonation of delay in refiling, the requirements of Section 5 of the Limitation Act,1963, have to be fulfilled. Ordinarily, this Court would take a liberal view in condoning the delay but in cases where there is huge delay, that too on flimsy grounds, then such a discretion cannot be exercised as it would become a mockery of the law of limitation. No steps were taken for a long time to remove the objections raised by the Registry of this Court. It is the duty of the party as well to follow his/her case. It cannot be believed that the applicant-appellant has not bothered to enquire about her case for about 1½ years. If she has not taken any interest, it is sheer negligence on the part of the applicant- appellant. It is settled law that rigour of limitation must apply where the C.M. No. 1075-C of 2006 and -2- R.S.A. No. 532 of 2006 statute so provides. In the case of P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala and another, (1997) 7 Supreme Court Cases 556, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:- “ The law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes and the courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The discretion exercised by the High Court was, thus, neither proper nor judicious. The order condoning the delay cannot be sustained. This appeal, therefore, succeeds and the impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay filed in the High Court would stand rejected and the miscellaneous first appeal shall stand dismissed as barred by time.” It would be highly unfair to the defendant-respondents to reopen the settled issue by condoning the delay. Therefore, no sufficient ground has been shown for condoning the colossal delay of 565 days. The application for condonation of delay in refiling the appeal stands dismissed; consequently, so as the appeal. ( ARVIND KUMAR ) January 22, 2009 JUDGE JS