C. R. No. 5434 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 5434 of 2009 Date of Decision : February 09, 2010 Kuldip Kaur and another .... Petitioners Vs. Gopal Singh and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. V. K. Sandhir, Advocate for the applicant-petitioners. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : C. M. No. 22430-C-II of 2009 : For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is accompanied by affidavit, delay of 06 days in filing the revision petition is condoned. Main Case : This is revision petition by defendants no.1 and 2 filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Suit was filed by respondents no.1 and 2 herein against the petitioners and respondents no.3 to 5. Petitioner no.1 is widow of Rajiv Singh, who was son of plaintiff- respondents no.1 and 2 i.e. Gopal Singh and his wife Lakhvir Kaur. Petitioner no.2 is minor son of petitioner no.1 i.e. grandson of respondents C. R. No. 5434 of 2009 2 no.1and 2. Respondents no.3 and 4 are brothers of petitioner no.1, whereas respondent no.5 is their father. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mansa, vide judgment and decree dated 28.08.2006, decreed the suit filed by respondents no.1 and 2. Only defendants no.1 and 2 i.e. petitioners herein filed first appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial court. The appeal was filed on 17.07.2008 i.e. after delay of almost 01 year and 10 months beyond the limitation period. Along with the appeal, the petitioners moved application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the aforesaid delay in filing the appeal, alleging that their counsel did not inform them about judgment and decree of the trial court, nor advised them to file the appeal. Respondents no.1 and 2 herein opposed the aforesaid application and controverted the allegations of the petitioners. It was also pleaded that there is unexplained delay of two years in filing the appeal. It was also averred that proceedings are pending under the Guardian and Wards Act between the parties regarding custody of the minor-petitioner no.2 and the appeal has been filed to harass respondents no.1 and 2. Learned lower appellate court framed following issues on application for condonation of delay :- “1. Whether there are sufficient grounds to condone the delay in filing the present appeal ? OPA 2. Relief.” After recording evidence, learned Additional District Judge, Mansa, vide impugned order dated 10.04.2009 (Annexure P-1) held ab initio that the appellants had failed to prove sufficient ground for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was dismissed and the appeal was consequently dismissed as time barred. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision petition has been preferred. C. R. No. 5434 of 2009 3 I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitiones contended that petitioner no.1 is fighting the litigation against her parents-in-law and the petitioners would be deprived of their rights in the property if delay in filing the first appeal before the lower appellate court is not condoned. However, this contention cannot be accepted because no sufficient case for condonation of long delay of almost 01 year and 10 months in filing the first appeal has been proved by the petitioners herein. Petitioner no.1 appeared in the witness-box as AW-1 in the lower appellate court. She admitted in her cross-examination that her father and brothers also used to appear in the trial court. Her father and brothers were co-defendants with her. Consequently, it cannot be said that the petitioners were not aware of the judgment and decree passed by the trial court for a period of almost 01 year and 10 months. Petitioner no.1 admitted that she had been meeting her father and brothers after every 2-3 months. Petitioner has not examined her father and brothers as witnesses to depict that even they were not aware of the judgment and decree of the trial court. In addition thereto, it was the duty of the petitioners to remain in touch with their counsel in the trial court to know the fate of the suit. Here, it may be noticed that petitioners are residents of Mansa and the suit was also pending at Mansa, whereas respondents no.1 and 2 are residents of Budhlada. The petitioners are residents of Mansa itself and suit also having been decided by the trial court at Mansa, it cannot be expected that the petitioners were not aware of the judgment and decree passed by the trial court for almost 01 year and 10 months. It is thus manifest that no sufficient cause has been proved by the petitioners for condonation of long delay of 01 year and 10 months in filing the first appeal. There is no infirmity or illegality in the finding of the lower appellate court. It is correct that Courts adopt liberal approach in the matters of condonation of delay in filing appeal or revision. However, the C. R. No. 5434 of 2009 4 liberal approach cannot be so stretched as to make law of limitation completely redundant. If long delay of 01 year and 10 months is condoned without there being any cause, much less sufficient cause, the Limitation Act would become redundant. This cannot be permitted. For the reasons recorded herein above, I find no merit in the instant revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed in limine. February 09, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE