Civil Revision No. 3797 of 2003 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 3797 of 2003 Date of Decision:August 06, 2009 State of Punjab and others ---Petitioner versus Piare Lal Bansal ---Respondent Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr. J.S.Sandhu, AAG, Punjab Mr.D.S.Brar, Advocate, for the respondents. *** SABINA J. Plaintiff-Piare Lal Bansal filed a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction claiming payment on interest on delayed payment and payments of cumulative pension and also for fixation of pension in the grade of Rs. 2000-3500/-. Suit of the plaintiff was decreed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala vide judgment and decree dated 5.8.2002. Aggrieved by the same, State filed an appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the trial court. The said appeal was accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act (for short- “the Act) Civil Revision No. 3797 of 2003 -2- for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Vide impugned order dated 28.4.2003, the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Patiala. Hence the present revision petition. Learned State counsel has submitted that there was delay of less than a month in filing the appeal. The appeal should have been filed on or before 17.9.2002 whereas it was filed on 12.10.2002 along with an application under Section 5 of the Act. It has further been submitted that the delay in filing the appeal was not intentional but due to official correspondence with the concerned departments. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal had been rightly dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge. It has further been observed in the order by the Additional District Judge that the judgment and decree of the trial court were apparently correct and required no interference. The Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another vs. Mst. Katiji and others, AIR 1987 S.C. 1353, has held as under:- 1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. Civil Revision No. 3797 of 2003 -3- 3. “Every day's delay must be explained” does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. 4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non- deliberate delay. 5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. 6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.” In the present case, the delay in filing the appeal had occurred due to official correspondence between different department. State had nothing to gain by filing the appeal late. The appeal was filed on 12.10.2002 in stead of on or before 17.9.2009. Thus, it cannot be said to be a case of long delay, so as to deny the opportunity to the State of getting its appeal decided on merits. In case the delay had been condoned, the appeal would have been decided on merits. In these circumstances, merely because the learned Additional District Judge has observed that the judgment and decree of the trial court were apparently correct, does not lead Civil Revision No. 3797 of 2003 -4- to the inference that he had minutely gone into the controversy involved in the case after hearing the parties. Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is liable to be condoned. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 28.4.2003 is set aside and delay in the filing the appeal is condoned. Learned Additional District Judge, Patiala is directed to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law. (SABINA) JUDGE August 06, 2009 PARAMJIT