In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 3144 of 2009 Date of decision: May 28, 2009 Surinder Kumar and another .. Petitioners Vs. Subodh Kumar and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. K.K. Bansal, Advocate for the petitioners. A.N. Jindal, J There was 37 days' delay in filing the appeal, regarding which application for condonation of delay was filed by the respondent. The lower appellate court after framing the issues and inviting evidence, accepted the application vide order dated 11.5.2009 and ordered to condone the delay in filing the appeal subject to payment of Rs.500/- as costs. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in case Pundlik Jalam Patil (D) by L.Rs. vs. Exe. Eng. Jalgaon Medium Project and another, 2008 (4) RCR (Civil) 885. in order to contend that the respondent has got condoned the delay by making incorrect statement, as such the delay should not be condoned. Heard. The appellant was not to be benefitted by filing the delayed appeal. Every day's delay is not to be explained with mathematic precision. If sufficient cause to excuse the delay has been disclosed, discretion is given to the court to condone the delay and admit the appeal and the meritorious claims cannot be thrown away without affording opportunity to the parties of being heard. Sufficient evidence has been led to show that there were sufficient grounds to condone the delay. The judgment delivered in case Pundlik Jalam Patil (D) by L.Rs.'s case (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case as there was long delay of 1724 days in filing the application against the award by Public Authority. In that situation the court took serious view of the matter that the petitioner had taken false Civil Revision No. 3144 of 2009 -2- *** stand to get rid of the bar of limitation. In the instant case, there is only 37 days' delay in filing the appeal that too stands fully explained. He has given the dates when he remained busy in getting her daughter treated and remained on leave. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. May 28, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge