CR No. 2725 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 2725 of 2010 (O&M) Decided on : 08-12-2010 Pal Singh ....Petitioner VERSUS Ram Kumar ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr.A.S.Gill, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.R.S.Bajaj, Advocate for the respondent MAHESH GROVER, J This revision petition is directed against the order dated 6.2.2010 by which the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed solely on the ground that it is barred by limitaiton.. The respondent filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell purportedly executed by the petitioner. The suit was decreed on 2.5.2008. The petitioner filed an appeal after delay of 10 months and took up the plea that in April, 2008 and June, 2008 there were two deaths in the family leaving him mentally disturbed. He has pleaded in the application for condonation of delay that he contacted his counsel in the month of March, 2009 then he learnt that a decree had been passed against him on 2.5.2008 and thereafter he obtained the certified copy of the order which he received on 31.3.2009 and then filed an appeal which has since been dismissed on account of delay. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there were CR No. 2725 of 2010 (O&M) 2 plausible reasons preventing him from pursuing his remedy of filing an appeal and therefore the revision petition be accepted and the matter be remitted back to the Appellate Court for decision on merits. The prayer is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent who has pointed out that even during the course of proceedings in the civil suit, the petitioner did not lead any evidence leading to the passing of the decree against him. He thus contends that conduct of the petitioner is not credible and thus no indulgence ought to be granted. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material on record. If the judgment and decree which the petitioner intended to impugn are to be seen then in para 6 thereof it is mentioned that he failed to produce any witness and he did not step in to the witness box himself despite having availed of sufficient opportunities and thereafter his evidence was closed by an order. Even this order was not impugned by the petitioner and it is only after he had invited a decree by his callous conduct that he chose to file the appeal that too belatedly after lapse of 10 months. There is indeed no doubt that the law of limitaiton has to be construed liberally so as to prevent injustice to a litigant who may have made unwitting default but to condone a delay in favour of a person who has been casual in his approach and has demonstrated an approach which smacks of complete disregard for the law of procedure then in such an eventuality no indulgence is to be shown. The petitioner neither produced any evidence nor examined himself as a witness and nor did he challenge the order by which his evidence was closed. His bona fides therefore are seriously under cloud and therefore he by no stretch of imagination can be CR No. 2725 of 2010 (O&M) 3 termed to be a vigilant crusader in a Court of law. The impugned order therefore does not warrant any interference in the absence of any error in jurisdiction committed by the Court below. Dismissed. December 08, 2010 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge