Civil Revision No.5093 of 2009 (O&M) {1}
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Civil Revision No.5093 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of Decision:September 07, 2009
Food Corporation of India
---Petitioner
versus
M/s Paramjit Singh Gurmeet Singh and others
---Respondents
Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
***
Present: Mr. Rajesh Sharma,Advocate,
for the petitioner
***
SABINA J.
Petitioner – Food Corporation of India has filed this petition
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the
impugned order dated 2.2.2009 passed by Additional District Judge,
Ludhiana (Annexure P-1).
Vide the impugned order (Annexure P-1), the application
seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal was allowed. Applicant
No. 2 in order to establish that the delay in filing the appeal was neither
intentional nor deliberate, himself appeared in the witness box as AW-1 and
Civil Revision No.5093 of 2009 (O&M) {2}
also examined AW-2 Vikram Singla. Learned District Judge vide impugned
order has observed that order in appeal was passed on 4.2.2006. Its copy
was applied on 20.2.2006 and the copy was prepared on 28.2.2006. Regular
First Appeal was filed in this Court on 24.4.2006 as the decretal amount was
more than Rs. 5.00,000/-. The appeal was returned by the registry on
8.5.2006 with some objections. It was refiled on 16.5.2007. Thereafter the
appeal was returned stating that the same be preferred before the District
Judge by virtue Ordinance No. 11 of 2006 dated 26.8.2006. The case of the
applicants was that the delay in filing the appeal had occurred as no
information was sent to them by their counsel who was directed to file the
regular first appeal. After collection of the papers from the counsel, the
counsel at Ludhiana had filed the appeal on 9.8.2007, after completing the
necessary formalities. The case of the petitioner -Corporation, on the other
hand, was that the delay in filing the appeal was deliberate.
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.
3. “Every day’s delay must be explained” does not mean that a
pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour’s
Civil Revision No.5093 of 2009 (O&M) {3}
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. 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.”
Learned Additional District Judge after appreciating the factual
matrix of the case has rightly held that the delay in filing the appeal could
not be said to be mala fide or intentional and hence, was liable to be
condoned. The respondents have been compensated with costs. No ground
for interference by this Court is made out.
Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed.
(SABINA)
JUDGE
September 07, 2009
PARAMJIT