Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3027 (PNJ)

Chief Administrator, Huda v. Satpal

2010-11-11

L.N.MITTAL

body2010
Judgment L.N.Mittal, J. 1. Defendants No. 2 to 4 i.e. Chief Administrator, Administrator and Estate Officer of Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) have filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Suit was filed by respondent/plaintiff Satpal against State of Haryana defendant No. 1 and against the petitioners as defendants No. 2 to 4. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panchkula vide judgment and decree dated 20.11.2006, Annexure P/1, decreed the suit. Defendants No. 2 to 4 filed first appeal on 26.5.2009 against judgment and decree of the trial court. Along with first appeal, defendants No. 2 to 4 made application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning delay of 873 days in filing the said appeal. Learned Additional District Judge, Panchkula vide judgment and decree dated 28.10.2009, Annexure P/2, dismissed the application for condonation of delay in filing the first appeal and consequently dismissed the first appeal as well. Feeling aggrieved, defendants No. 2 to 4 filed RSA No. 2186 of 2010 in this Court. However, vide order dated 30.6.2010, Annexure P/3 passed by this Court, appellants were permitted to withdraw the said RSA with liberty to file appropriate revision petition against impugned order of the lower appellate court. Thereafter, the instant revision petition has been filed. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that since HUDA is a statutory authority, lot of paper work is involved to arrive at decision of filing or not filing of appeal and therefore, there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 873 days in filing the first appeal. 5. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention but find no merit therein. It is correct that ordinarily courts adopt liberal approach in matter of condonation of delay. It is further correct that that courts have shown some extra latitude and indulgence in this respect in favour of State or its instrumentalities. However, at the same time, the law of limitation cannot be made redundant. Long delay of 873 days i.e. almost two and half years cannot be said to be explained even remotely by vague, general and omnipotent plea that the delay occurred due to official paper work. However, at the same time, the law of limitation cannot be made redundant. Long delay of 873 days i.e. almost two and half years cannot be said to be explained even remotely by vague, general and omnipotent plea that the delay occurred due to official paper work. By no stretch of imagination, such an explanation can be accepted for condonation of long delay of 873, even adopting the most liberal approach. Delay of some days, weeks or even few months possibly could have been condoned but delay of almost two and half years cannot be condoned on the basis of general plea of official paper work and the channel of hierarchy involved in filing the first appeal on behalf of HUDA. The petitioners have miserably failed to explain the aforesaid long delay in filing the first appeal. The lower appellate court has not committed any illegality or jurisdictional error in declining to condone the said long delay. There is no infirmity much less illegality in the impugned judgment Annexure P/2 of the lower appellate court. 6. The petitioners have to set their own house in order. They have to streamline their procedure in pursuing their litigation. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that there was also delay of 68 days even in filing RSA No. 2186 of 2010 in this Court. Even after the said RSA was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file revision petition, the instant revision petition has been filed after more than four months. Thus, there has been callous attitude on the part of the petitioners in pursuing the litigation. Such fruitless litigation is consuming precious time of the Courts. Inspite of repeated observations by different courts, it is apparent that no steps have been taken by HUDA to streamline its procedure and to take effective steps to avoid such delays and consequently to protect the interest of HUDA, resulting in loss to HUDA on account of lapse in pursuing the litigation properly. It appears that concerned officers do not care for it because there is no personal loss to them, even if HUDA loses the litigation. The loss will be to HUDA or in other words, to the public but not to the officers concerned. 7. It appears that concerned officers do not care for it because there is no personal loss to them, even if HUDA loses the litigation. The loss will be to HUDA or in other words, to the public but not to the officers concerned. 7. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision petition which is completely frivolous and deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs so as to curb such practice and to save precious time of the courts. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed in limine with exemplary costs of Rs. 20,000/-, to be deposited with the Registry of this Court within one month, failing which the case shall be listed for this purpose.