IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2090 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: September 5, 2011. Shri Jagdish and others. ...... APPELLANT (s) Versus Sulekh Chand and others. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. S.K.Panwar, Advocate for the applicants-appellants. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) CM No.5855-C of 2011 Heard. The present appeal has not been filed within prescribed period of limitation. There is inordinate delay of 1635 days in filing the appeal. Perusal of application and the affidavit filed by one of the appellants, Jagdish shows that the plea taken for condonation of delay is that appellants had engaged some counsel in Chandigarh in September, RSA No.2090 of 2011 2006 and that the relevant documents were handed over to him and however, he did not file the appeal and when they received notice of execution, they verified the fate of the appeal and came to know that no appeal was filed. However, very vague plea has been taken by the appellants. Even the name of the counsel who was engaged by them was not mentioned in the application. It has also not been mentioned as to when they came to know and as to when they received notice about filing of the execution. It has also not been mentioned to whom they contacted and as to why they did not contact the earlier counsel. Hence, in view of the vague plea taken by applicants-appellants inordinate delay of 1635 days in filing the present appeal cannot be condoned. In a recent judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and another, 2010(2) RCR(Civil) 284, law on the point of condonation of delay in filing the appeal has been summed up as under:- “8. We have considered the respective submissions. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The legislature does not prescribe limitation with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. To put it differently, the law of limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed for redress of the legal injury. At the same time, the courts are bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is 2 RSA No.2090 of 2011 shown for not availing the remedy within the stipulated time. The expression "sufficient cause" employed in Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 and similar other statutes is elastic enough to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub serves the ends of justice. Although, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in dealing with the applications for condonation of delay, this Court has justifiably advocated adoption of a liberal approach in condoning the delay of short duration and a stricter approach where the delay is inordinate - Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 2 SCC 107, N.Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy 1999(2) RCR (Civil) 578: (1998) 7 SCC 123 and Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil 2001(3) RCR(Civil) 831: (2001) 9 SCC 106. In dealing with the applications for condonation of delay filed on behalf of the State and its agencies/instrumentalities this Court has, while emphasizing that same yardstick should be applied for deciding the applications for condonation of delay filed by private individuals and the State, observed that certain amount of latitude is not impermissible in the latter case because the State represents collective cause of the community and the decisions are taken by the officers/agencies at a slow pace and encumbered process of pushing the files from table to table consumes considerable time causing delay - G. Ramegowda v. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer 1988(1) RRR 555: (1988) 2 SCC 142, State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani 1996(2) RRR 82: (1996) 3 SCC 132, State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra 1996 (2) SCT 712: (1996) 9 SCC 309, State of Bihar v. Ratan Lal Sahu (1996) 10 SCC 635, State of Nagaland v. Lipok Ao 200;5:(2) RCR Criminal 414: 2005(2): RCR (Civil) 375: 2005 (2) Apex Criminal 75: (2005) 3 SCC 752, and State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ahmed Jaan 2008(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 119: 2008(4) 3 RSA No.2090 of 2011 RCR(Civil) 126: 2008(4) SCT 25: 2008(2) RCR(Rent) 234: 2008(5) RAJ 214: (2008) 14 SCC 582.” Hence, in view of this legal proposition, court is bestowed with power to condone the delay in filing the appeal, if sufficient cause is shown for not filing the same within the stipulated period. No straight jacket formula can be laid down in dealing with the application for condonation of delay. However, Hon’ble Apex Court in various judgments held that liberal approach should be adopted by the Courts in condoning the delay of short duration and a stricter approach where the delay is inordinate. Hence, what to talk of sufficient ground, no ground is made out for condonation of delay of 1635 days in filing the present regular second appeal. Hence, the present application for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal is, hereby, dismissed. RSA No.2090 of 2011 As a consequence thereof, the present regular second appeal is also dismissed as having not been filed within the prescribed period of limitation. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) September 5, 2011. JUDGE 'om’ 4