Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1558 (PNJ)

Makhan Singh v. Joginder Singh

2011-08-11

RAM CHAND GUPTA

body2011
JUDGMENT RAM CHAND GUPTA, J. - C.M.No.19337-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.4832 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 5.2.2011, Annexure P1, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, Phagwara, and order dated 19.7.2011, Annexure P2, passed by learned District Judge, Kapurthala, vide which appeal filed by petitioners has been dismissed on the ground of delay of 33 days. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the whole record carefully including the orders passed by both the learned Courts below. 3. At the time of argument it has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that he restricts his prayer in this revision petition to challenge only order passed by learned District Judge, Kapurthala, dated 19.7.2011, vide which appeal filed by present petitioners has not been decided on merit and rather the same has been dismissed on account of delay of 33 days in filing the same. It has been further contended that delay occurred as earlier revision petition was filed by petitioners against order dated 5.2.2011 passed by learned Executing Court on erroneous advice given to petitioners, whereas, the order was appealable and hence, appeal was filed alongwith an application for condonation of delay of 33 days. Hence, it is contended that there were sufficient grounds for condoning the delay of 33 days in filing the appeal and, however, learned appellate Court committed illegality in declining to condone the delay and dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay only. 4. In a recent judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and another, 2010(2) RCR(Civil) 284, law on the point of condonation of delay in filing the appeal has been summed up as under:- “8. We have considered the respective submissions. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The legislature does not prescribe limitation with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The legislature does not prescribe limitation with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. To put it differently, the law of limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed for redress of the legal injury. At the same time, the courts are bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is shown for not availing the remedy within the stipulated time. The expression "sufficient cause" employed in Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 and similar other statutes is elastic enough to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub serves the ends of justice. Although, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in dealing with the applications for condonation of delay, this Court has justifiably advocated adoption of a liberal approach in condoning the delay of short duration and a stricter approach where the delay is inordinate -Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 2 SCC 107, N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy 1999(2) RCR (Civil) 578: (1998) 7 SCC 123 and Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil 2001(3) RCR(Civil) 831: (2001) 9 SCC 106. In dealing with the applications for condonation of delay filed on behalf of the State and its agencies/instrumentalities this Court has, while emphasizing that same yardstick should be applied for deciding the applications for condonation of delay filed by private individuals and the State, observed that certain amount of latitude is not impermissible in the latter case because the State represents collective cause of the community and the decisions are taken by the officers/agencies at a slow pace and encumbered process of pushing the files from table to table consumes considerable time causing delay-G. Ramegowda v. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer 1988(1) RRR 555: (1988) 2 SCC 142, State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani 1996(2) RRR 82: (1996) 3 SCC 132, State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra 1996 (2) SCT 712: (1996) 9 SCC 309, State of Bihar v. Ratan Lal Sahu (1996) 10 SCC 635, State of Nagaland v. Lipok Ao 2005:(2) RCR Criminal 414: 2005(2): RCR (Civil) 375: 2005 (2) Apex Criminal 75: (2005) 3 SCC 752, and State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ahmed Jaan 2008(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 119: 2008(4) RCR(Civil) 126: 2008(4) SCT 25: 2008(2) RCR (Rent) 234: 2008(5) RAJ 214: (2008) 14 SCC 582.” 5. Hence, in view of this legal proposition as held by Hon'ble Apex Court, the Courts should take a lenient view in condoning the delay of shorter period. In this case delay is only of 33 days and the ground has also been taken by the petitioner-appellant that earlier on account of wrong advice, he filed revision petition before this Court, whereas the order was appealable. 6. Hence, in view of these facts, the present revision petition is accepted. Impugned order passed by learned appellate Court dated 19.7.2011 is set aside. Learned trial Court is directed to condone the delay in filing the appeal by petitioner-appellant and decide the appeal on merits. 7. However, at this stage, no notice is being issued to the opposite party, because if the respondents are summoned to contest this litigation, it may involve huge expenditure and unnecessary harassment and delay of the proceedings. For this view, reliance can be placed upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in Batala Machine Tools Workshop Coop v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur, CWP No.9563 of 2002, decided on 27.6.2002, wherein it was observed as under:- “We are conscious of the fact that the instant order is detrimental to the interest of the respondent-workman. We are also conscious of the fact that no notice has been given to the respondent-workman before the instant order has been passed. The reasons for not issuing notice to the respondent workman is to ensure that he does not have to incur unnecessary expenses in engaging counsel to appear on his behalf in this Court. We are also conscious of the fact that no notice has been given to the respondent-workman before the instant order has been passed. The reasons for not issuing notice to the respondent workman is to ensure that he does not have to incur unnecessary expenses in engaging counsel to appear on his behalf in this Court. The instant order by which the present petition is being disposed of fully protects the interest of the respondent-workman inasmuch as the amount determined by the Labour Court, Gurdaspur, by its order dated 22.5.2002 has been required to be deposited by the petitioner-Management before the Labour Court/Labour-Cum-Conciliation Officer, Gurdaspur.” 8. However, liberty is granted to the respondents to get this revision petition revived if they feel dissatisfied with this order Petition dismissed.