Civil Revision No. 3797 of 2003 -1-
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Civil Revision No. 3797 of 2003
Date of Decision:August 06, 2009
State of Punjab and others
---Petitioner
versus
Piare Lal Bansal
---Respondent
Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
***
Present: Mr. J.S.Sandhu, AAG, Punjab
Mr.D.S.Brar, Advocate,
for the respondents.
***
SABINA J.
Plaintiff-Piare Lal Bansal filed a suit for declaration and
mandatory injunction claiming payment on interest on delayed payment
and payments of cumulative pension and also for fixation of pension in the
grade of Rs. 2000-3500/-. Suit of the plaintiff was decreed by the Civil
Judge (Junior Division), Patiala vide judgment and decree dated 5.8.2002.
Aggrieved by the same, State filed an appeal challenging the
judgment and decree of the trial court. The said appeal was accompanied
by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act (for short- “the Act)
Civil Revision No. 3797 of 2003 -2-
for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Vide impugned order dated
28.4.2003, the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal
was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Patiala. Hence the present
revision petition.
Learned State counsel has submitted that there was delay of
less than a month in filing the appeal. The appeal should have been filed on
or before 17.9.2002 whereas it was filed on 12.10.2002 along with an
application under Section 5 of the Act. It has further been submitted that
the delay in filing the appeal was not intentional but due to official
correspondence with the concerned departments.
Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has
submitted that the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the
appeal had been rightly dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge.
It has further been observed in the order by the Additional District Judge
that the judgment and decree of the trial court were apparently correct and
required no interference.
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.
Civil Revision No. 3797 of 2003 -3-
3. “Every day’s delay must be explained” does not mean that a
pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour’s
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.
6. 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.”
In the present case, the delay in filing the appeal had occurred
due to official correspondence between different department. State had
nothing to gain by filing the appeal late. The appeal was filed on
12.10.2002 in stead of on or before 17.9.2009. Thus, it cannot be said to be
a case of long delay, so as to deny the opportunity to the State of getting its
appeal decided on merits. In case the delay had been condoned, the appeal
would have been decided on merits. In these circumstances, merely
because the learned Additional District Judge has observed that the
judgment and decree of the trial court were apparently correct, does not lead
Civil Revision No. 3797 of 2003 -4-
to the inference that he had minutely gone into the controversy involved in
the case after hearing the parties.
Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed and the delay in
filing the appeal is liable to be condoned. Accordingly, the impugned order
dated 28.4.2003 is set aside and delay in the filing the appeal is condoned.
Learned Additional District Judge, Patiala is directed to decide the appeal
on merits in accordance with law.
(SABINA)
JUDGE
August 06, 2009
PARAMJIT