IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.M. No. 10867-C of 2008 and R.S.A. No. 3665 of 2008 Date of decision: 29-1-2009 Prabhu Dayal … Applicant -appellant versus Raghubir and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate, for the applicant-appellant. … ARVIND KUMAR, J: The present appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff against the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby his suit for permanent injunction has been dismissed. The appellant along with the appeal, has filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking condonation of delay of 808 days in refiling the appeal, merely on the ground that the clerk of the counsel had inadvertently put the paper-book of the case in some other brief and this fact came to notice only when the appellant contacted his counsel for his case and thereafter, the paper-book of the present appeal was located by the clerk of the counsel. 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 C.M. No. 10867-C of 2008 and -2- R.S.A. No. 3665 of 2008 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 his case for more than two years. If he 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 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 delay of 808 days in refiling the appeal. The application for condonation of delay in refiling the appeal stands dismissed; consequently, so as the appeal. ( ARVIND KUMAR ) January 29, 2009 JUDGE JS