IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.M. No. 5618-C of 2008 and R.S.A. No. 1858 of 2008 Date of decision: 10-2-2009 State of Haryana and others … Applicant -appellants versus Sulender … Respondent THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. Ajay Gulati, AAG Haryana , for the applicant-appellants. Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Advocate for respondent No.1 Mr. N.K.Malhotra, Advocate for respondent No.2 … ARVIND KUMAR, J: After having lost concurrently before the two Courts below, the appellant-defendant/State of Haryana has preferred the instant regular second appeal. The present appeal has been filed on 17.6.2008. Along with the appeal, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has also been filed and the delay of 1573 days in filing the instant regular second appeal has been sought to be condoned. The ground taken is that the delay has occurred due to procedural arrangements and as such, the delay caused was not intentional and deserves to be condoned. In this case, application for obtaining certified copy of the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2003 passed by the District Judge, Rohtak, was filed on 24.12.2003, which was prepared and delivered on 14.1.2004. The application for condonation of delay indicates that the file had been shuttling amongst Legal Remembrancer and Secretary to Government of Haryana, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Haryana, and Divisional/Range Forest Officer. The approach is not only casual but callous. It has also been the endeavour 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 C.M. No. 5618-C of 2008 and -2- R.S.A. No. 1858 of 2008 appellant-State has been callous throughout. It has not spelt out any fact relevant to the exercise of jurisdiction to condone the delay. Although the Hon'ble Supreme Court has recommended that a 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 limitation. No person should be allowed to take undue advantage of such a concession. No separate standards to determine the cause laid by the State vis-a-vis private litigant could be laid to prove strict standards of sufficient cause. 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 gets defeated. 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.” Thus, there being no plausible explanation, this Court finds no justification for condoning the delay of more than four years in filing the instant appeal as it would be unfair to the plaintiff-respondent to re-open the settled issue once again. Accordingly, the instant application as well as the appeal stand dismissed. ( ARVIND KUMAR ) February 10, 2009 JUDGE JS