Ajit Singh and Others vs Karnail Singh and Others

Iqbal Singh, J.—The present second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Amritsar dated 5th May 1997 was initially filed on 23rd August, 1997 alongwith Civil Miscellaneous No.137-C of 1998 seeking condonation of delay of four days in filing the appeal. The appeal was returned with certain objections and it was again filed on 19th November, 1997 and was again returned. Finally, it was filed on 24th December, 1997. Civil Miscellaneous No.l36-C of 1998 was consequently moved seeking condonation of delay of 44 days in refiling the appeal. It was stated that the appeal was mixed up with other papers and could be traced only on 18th November, 1997 and that the delay in refiling the appeal was not intentional and therefore, the same may be condoned, in the interest of justice.

Upon notice, respondent No.2 filed reply to Civil Miscellaneous No.l36-C of 1998. It was stated that the applicant has not mentioned in the application as to when the appeal was mixed up with papers and how it was traced and from where, and that as a matter of fact, there was a delay of 90 days in filing the appeal and it has been wrongly stated in the application that the delay of was only 44 days.

Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. Counsel for the appellants urged that the delay in filing or refiling the appeal was not intentional and it deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice. On the other hand, counsel for respondent No.2 contended that there is no justification to condone the delay as the appellants have failed to show a sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the time prescribed in law. Learned counsel also relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Prithvi Raj v. Smt. Kamal Kanta 1980 R L.R. 91 Shri Gurbachan Singh v. Shri Mastan Singh etc., (1984)86 P.L.R. 438 and P.L. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala and Anr. (1988)120 P.L.R. 605.

Admittedly, the appeal was originally filed on 23rd August, 1997 i.e. four days after the expiry of the period of limitation. It was thereafter returned and refiled on two more occasions. According to the appellants, the papers of this appeal were mixed up with the papers of other cases and as a result, a delay of 44 days occurred in refiling the appeal whereas the stand of the respondents, on the other hand, is that in fact there was a delay of 90 days in refiling the appeal and in any case, the ground on the basis of which the delay has been sought to be condoned is not justifiable. It has not been shown by the appellants as to when the papers of this appeal were mixed up with the papers of the other case. It is not explained that after the papers were misplaced, what efforts were made to trace the same. Though the law regarding condonation of delay is very liberal but it cannot be stretched to mean that a party can approach the Court any time it likes, totally ignoring the rigours provided in the Limitation Act. A person who is really serious in pursuing his case is supposed to be vigilant enough to file appeal well within the time prescribed in law and even if papers had been misplaced as in the situation stated here, such a party is supposed not to spare any effort to trace the same. Nothing of the sort is shown to have been done by the appellants. In Gurbachan Singh''s case, there was a delay of 85 days in refiling the appeal. The delay was found not tenable and the appeal was dismissed as time barred, by observing as under:-

"A party cannot be given undue latitude in complying with the orders of the Registry to remove the defects pointed out in appeal. The appellant cannot be permitted to move at leisure. If great latitude is given to the litigants then they might not only take months but years for complying with the orders. The appellant in this case took 85 days to refile the appeal after removing the defects pointed out by the Registry. Such misuse requires to be checked."

Delay cannot be condoned even on equity as has been recently held by the apex Court in P.K. Ramachandran''s case (supra). It was observed as under:-

"Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribe and the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds."

For the foregoing reasons, I am of the opinion that the appellants have not been able to show a sufficient cause for not filing/refiling the appeal within the time prescribed in law. The applications are dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed as time barred.