IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
C.M. No. 10990-C of 2008 and
R.S.A. No. 3700 of 2008
Date of decision: 2-2-2009
Ram Singh ... Applicant
-appellant
versus
Union of India ... Respondent
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR
Present: Mr. D.S.Rawat, Advocate,
for the applicant-appellant.
...
ARVIND KUMAR, J:
After having lost concurrently before the two Courts
below, the appellant-plaintiff has preferred the instant regular second
appeal.
The present appeal has been filed on 22.9.2008. Along
with the appeal, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has
also been filed and the delay of 513 days in filing the instant regular second
appeal has been sought to be condoned. The ground taken is that certified
copy of the judgment and decree dated 19.1.2007 passed by the Additional
District Judge was prepared on 27.1.2007 but the applicant-appellant
remained under treatment for hyper-tension. Then his only son ran away on
28.10.2007 for which a DDR was got recorded at Police Station Kurali,
District Ropar on 31.10.2007. Now having over-come the depression,
the present appeal has been filed. The explanation, referred to above, is not
worth of any credence in the facts of the present case. There is no medical
proof of treatment of hyper-tension. The son was stated to be found missing
on 28.10.2007 but again, there is no proof of sufferance of hyper-tension or
depression. Thus, there is no plausible explanation for not filing the appeal
within limitation. The approach, as taken, is very casual that now the
applicant-appellant is feeling well and is filing the appeal. It has also been
the endeavour of this Court to hear the parties on merits, but in the facts and
circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
R.S.A. No. 3700 of 2008 -2-
appellant has been negligent and callous throughout. Although the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has recommended that a pedantic approach should
not be made in the matter, but in the cases where there is huge delay, such a
discretion cannot be exercised as it would become mockery of law of
limitation. No person should be allowed to take undue advantage of such a
concession. The Courts should also not lose sight of the fact that by not
taking steps within the time prescribed, a valuable right accrued to the other
party gets defeated. In the case of P.K. Ramachandran v. State of
Kerala and another, (1997) 7 Supreme Court Cases 556, it has been held
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as under:-
” The law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party
but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so
prescribes and the courts have no power to extend the period
of limitation on equitable grounds. The discretion exercised
by the High Court was, thus, neither proper nor judicious. The
order condoning the delay cannot be sustained. This appeal,
therefore, succeeds and the impugned order is set aside.
Consequently, the application for condonation of delay filed in
the High Court would stand rejected and the miscellaneous
first appeal shall stand dismissed as barred by time.”
Thus, there being no plausible explanation, this Court finds no
justification for condoning the delay of about 1½ year in filing the instant
appeal as it would be unfair to the defendant-respondent to re-open the
settled issue once again.
Accordingly, the instant application as well as the appeal stand
dismissed.
( ARVIND KUMAR )
February 2, 2009 JUDGE
JS