Civil Revision No. 6859 of 2011 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6859 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 9th, 2011 Lachhwant Singh .... Petitioner Versus Union of India and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present Mr. Sarjit Singh, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Amit, Advocate, for the petitioner. VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. Vide judgment and decree dated 1.12.2010 (Annexure P1), the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala decreed the suit of Lachhwant Singh, petitioner-plaintiff against Union of India and others. As Union of India and others got late in filing the appeal, they had filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal along with the grounds of appeal. The said application has been allowed by learned Additional District Judge, Patiala vide order dated 5.9.2011 (Annexure P2), which is challenged by Lachhwant Singh, plaintiff by way of this revision petition under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned Appellate Court has rejected the submission of Civil Revision No. 6859 of 2011 2 .. learned counsel for the petitioner that the applicants were obliged to explain the delay of each and every day in filing the appeal. Taking into account that the appellant is not an individual but Union of India, which works through its officials and the file for taking decision of filing the appeal passes through various channels resulting in delay and the fact that the delay is merely of 15 days, the Appellant Court found the delay to be explained and resultantly the application for condonation of delay has been allowed. I have heard Mr. Sarjit Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Amit, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record carefully. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no difference can be made between a private individual and the State before the law. According to him, the State should also explain the delay in the manner, it is required to be explained by an individual. He has submitted that learned appellate court has lightly accepted the plea of Union of India and has not been right in accepting the application and condoning the delay. I fail to find any substance in the submission of learned senior counsel for the petitioner. The delay, in the first place, is for a period of 15 days only. The suit had been decided by a court at Patiala and the decision had to be taken for filing the appeal by the Union of India having its offices at New Delhi. The file passes through various channels for finally deciding about the filing of the appeal. Learned appellate court has noticed various decisions of Hon`ble High Courts and Hon`ble Supreme Court of India where delay for a larger period had been Civil Revision No. 6859 of 2011 3 .. condoned in appeals brought by the State or the Union of India. In these circumstances, I find no substance in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality. The revision petition is, consequently, dismissed. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE November 9th, 2011 som