Abhey Kumar Chawla vs Punjab State Civil Supplies … on 24 August, 2009

C.R. No. 4941 of 2007                                          1



      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH




                                     C.R. No. 4941 of 2007 (O&M)

                                     Date of Decision: 24.08.2009




Abhey Kumar Chawla                                      ...Petitioner

                        Vs.

Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. & Ors.     ..Respondents




Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma



Present:    Mr.J.S.Bhatia, Advocate,
            for the petitioner.

            Mr.Aman Chaudhary, Advocate,
            for respondent Nos.1 & 2.

                        ---

Vinod K.Sharma,J.

CM No.18662-CII of 2007

Allowed. The petitioner is exempted from filing certified copy

of judgment of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division).

CR No.4941 of 2007

This revision petition is directed against order dated 30.7.2007

passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, dismissing an

application moved by the petitioner under section 5 of the Limitation Act
C.R. No. 4941 of 2007 2

for condoning delay of 7 days in filing the appeal.

The respondent/plaintiffs field a suit for recovery of

Rs.1,71,545/- on account of loss due to excessive replacement of gunny

bags and interest thereon. Suit was decreed.

With the appeal the petitioner filed an application under section

5 of the Limitation Act (for short the Act) on the plea that the copy was

prepared on 23.3.2005 but for want of intimation he could collect the same

only on 30.3.2005. The case set up was that it was on account of difference

in date of preparation and delivery there was error of calculation of period

of limitation.

Learned Additional District Judge did not accept the

application on the ground that it was for the petitioner to have enquired

about the preparation of copy.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that ‘sufficient

cause’ is to be given liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice.

In absence of grave negligence, inaction or want of bona fide, the delay

should have been condoned. In support of this contention, the learned

counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in

the case of Major Singh Vs. Balwant Singh and others, 2006 (3) RCR

(Civil) 810.

The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on

the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana

Vs. Chandra Mani and others, (1996) 3 SCC 132, wherein Hon’ble

Supreme Court has been pleased to lay down as under:-

“11. Section 5 of the Limitation Act gives power to the Court
C.R. No. 4941 of 2007 3

to admit the appeal or application after the prescribed period.

The Supreme Court generally adopts a liberal approach in

condonation of delay finding somewhat sufficient cause to

decide the appeal on merits. When the Sate is an applicant,

praying for condonation of delay, it is common knowledge that

on account of impersonal machinery and the inherited

bureaucratic methodology imbued with the note-making, file-

pushing and passing-on-the-buck ethos, delay on the part of the

State is less difficult to understand though more difficult to

approve, but the sate represents collective cause of the

community. Decisions are taken by officers/agencies

proverbially at slow pace and encumbered process of pushing

the files from table to table and keeping it on table for

considerable time causing delay – intentional or otherwise – is

a routine. Considerable delay of procedural red-tape in the

process of their making decision is a common feature.

Therefore, certain amount of latitude is not impermissible. If

the appeals brought by the state are lost for such default no

person is individually affected by what in the ultimate analysis

suffers, is public interest. The expression”sufficient cause”

should, therefore, be considered with pragmatism in justice-

oriented approach rather than the technical detection of

sufficient cause for explaining every day’s delaying. The

factors which are peculiar to and characteristic of the

functioning of the governmental conditions would be cognizant
C.R. No. 4941 of 2007 4

to and requires adoption of pragmatic approach in justice-

oriented process. The court should decide the matter on merits

unless the case is hopelessly without merit. No separate

standard to determine the cause laid by the Sate vis-a-vis

private litigant could be laid to prove strict standards of

sufficient cause. Litigants including the sate are accorded the

same treatment and the law is administered in an even-handed

manner.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on

the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of

Nagaland Vs. Lipok AO and others, (2005) 3 SCC 752, wherein the

Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to lay down as under:-

“………Expression sufficient cause should be considered with

pragmatism in a justice-oriented approach rather than the

technical detection of sufficient cause for explaining every

day’s delay – Having regard to considerable delay of procedural

red tape in the decision making process of the Govt., certain

amount of latitude is permissible – The Sate is an impersonal

machinery working through its officers or servants – Hence, it

cannot be put on the same footing as an individual – Public

interest suffers if appeals by the Sate are lost because of such

default – Court to decide the maters on merits unless the case is

hopelessly without merit – state should constitute legal cells to

examine whether cases involve legal principles for decision by

court or require adjustment at governmental level – Officer
C.R. No. 4941 of 2007 5

concerned should be made personally responsible for the delay

in filing the appeal. On facts, delay of 57 days in filing the

application for grant of leave made in terms of S.378(3) Cr.PC.

Held, deserved condonation -Criminal Procedure Code 1973

S.378(3).”

The delay is only of 7 days. The petitioner was not to gain

anything by filing the appeal late, but would have got the appeal decided on

merit. The ground pleaded made out a sufficient cause for condoning the

delay.

Consequently, this revision is allowed. Impugned order is set

aside and the application moved by the petitioner for condonation of delay

is allowed.

The learned lower appellate court is directed to dispose of the

appeal on merits in accordance with law.

                                                   (Vinod K.Sharma)
24.08.2009                                              Judge
rp