C.R. No. 2543 of 2009 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 2543 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 24.2.2010 Om Parkash & others .......... Petitioners Versus Lado & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. R.N. Lohan, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Dinesh Malik, Advocate for the respondents. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 12.2.2009, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Jind vide which application moved by the petitioners, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 108 days, in filing the appeal stands dismissed. The suit for possession, filed by the plaintiff / respondents was decreed, by the learned trial Court, subject to their making good the deficiency in Court fee within 20 days. Though, the judgment and decree was passed in presence of the petitioners i.e. their counsel, the petitioners chose not to challenge the judgment in appeal. When the execution application was filed, the petitioners filed the appeal against the judgment and decree, passed by the learned trial Court, along with an application for condoning the delay of 108 days, on the plea that the petitioners were C.R. No. 2543 of 2009 2 advised by the Counsel, that they would be given notice by the Court, before accepting the Court fee from the plaintiff / respondents, and the appeal can only be filed thereafter. The learned lower appellate Court did not accept the stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners, firstly for the reason, that no affidavit of the counsel was filed. Secondly for the reason, that the stand taken was such which could not ordinarily be believed, that a counsel would give such an advice, the learned lower appellate Court found that no sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 108 days in filing the appeal was made out. The learned counsel for the petitioners, challenged the impugned order on the ground, that it is now well settled, that sufficient cause has to be liberally construed, as the party gets no benefit by filing the appeal beyond limitation period. The learned lower appellate Court should have accepted, the application for condonation of delay of 108 days, and decided the appeal on merit, in view of settled law. On consideration, I find no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The exercise of jurisdiction by the learned lower appellate Court cannot be said to be perverse or illegal. Prima facie no case was made out for condonation of delay, as the stand taken was such which could not be believed by anybody. The liberal construction to word “sufficient cause” can not be extended, to accept even prima facie false plea, which may be raised for seeking condonation of delay, if such pleas are accepted, the Limitation Act itself will become redundant. It is not within the preview or jurisdiction of C.R. No. 2543 of 2009 3 the Court to give such interpretation to the provision of a statute. No ground for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction by this Court is made out. No merit. Dismissed. 24.2.2010 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE