Hari Singh vs State of Punjab

Ram Chand Gupta, J.—The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing/setting aside the impugned order dated 8.8.2008 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Mohali, i.e., Annexure P7, vide which application filed by Petitioner-applicant u/s 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 20 years and 197 days in filing the appeal was dismissed and as a consequence thereby appeal was also dismissed as having not been filed within prescribed period of limitation.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned Additional District Judge, Mohali.

Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that a suit for declaration to the effect that Petitioner-Plaintiff is owner in possession of 4/5 share of the land measuring 6K-4 M comprised in khasra No. 33/8 situated in Village Manakpur Kalar, entered in jamabandi for the year 1975-76 and for permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from interfering in any manner in the rights of the Plaintiff was filed by the Petitioner on the brief averment that Hazara Singh son of Chhota Singh was owner of the said land, who sold the same to the Petitioner-Plaintiff vide sale deed dated 19.3.1979 for consideration of Rs. 2,000/- and that mutation on the basis of the same was also sanctioned. Plea has also been taken that he is bona fide purchaser for consideration. Suit was contested by Respondent- Defendant on the plea that Hazara Singh was allotted the suit land under Punjab Utilization of Surplus Area Scheme, 1973 on 1.7.1975 and as per condition of the said allotment, allottee was not competent to transfer his right in the land till he becomes owner of the same or before the expiry of 15 years from the date of possession, whichever is later. However, Hazara Singh sold the same to present Petitioner vide sale deed dated 19.3.1979, Ex.P1, i.e., just after the period of four years, without obtaining any permission from the competent authority and without acquiring exclusive title in the same and hence, the allotment was cancelled. Plea has also been taken that jurisdiction of civil Court is also barred u/s 21 of the Punjab Reforms Act, 1972.

Issue regarding jurisdiction was treated as preliminary, which was decided against the Petitioner-Plaintiff and as a consequence, thereof, suit filed by Petitioner-Plaintiff was also dismissed, vide judgment and decree dated 12.1.1987.

Present appeal against the said judgment has been filed by Petitioner-Plaintiff alongwith an application for condonation of delay of 20 years and 197 days, which were dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Mohali, by observing as under:

Admittedly, the suit filed by the Plaintiff against the State qua property in dispute was dismissed as back as on 12.1.1987 in the presence of his Counsel and Govt. Pleader for the State and no appeal was filed against that judgment by the applicant earlier. The contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant that he was under the impression that he has also been made a party in the appeal filed against the judgment of the Lower Court alongwith Ujagar Singh and Natha Singh is without any merit because a perusal of the judgment under appeal would show that the said suit was filed by Hari Singh applicant alone. There was no co-Plaintiff. It is his duty to know about the fate of the case. It does not appeal to reason that the applicant remained unaware about the fate of his case for a continuous period of more than 20 years. There is no cogent or convincing evidence on the file to prove that the applicant has left his village in the year 1987 and came back only in 2008. It has neither been pleaded nor proved on the file where the applicant remained during this period of 20 years. False story appears to have been concocted just to get the period of limitation extended. The authority titled as Lajo Devi v. Smt. Om Swati etc., 2003 (3) RCR (Civil) 181 relied upon by the Counsel for the applicant is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Moreover, in that case the delay was only of 65 days whereas in this case the delay is more than 20 years.

As is clear from the aforementioned order passed by learned Additional District Judge, Mohali, the only ground for condonation of delay of 20 years and 197 days in filing the appeal taken by present Petitioner is that some other persons had also purchased land from Hazara Singh and their suit was also dismissed and they had filed appeal against the said judgment and he was under the impression that he was also made party in the said appeal.

However, he was not a co-Plaintiff in that suit. Suit filed by present Petitioner-Plaintiff was an independent one. Hence, he could not be made a party in the appeal filed by the other Plaintiffs. He did not bother to know about the fate of his case for the period of more than 20 years. Learned Additional District Judge, Mohali, has rightly observed that the said plea cannot be accepted. Though the Courts are liberal in condoning the delay in filing the appeal and, however, if there is inordinate delay, applicant has to make out a sufficient cause for condonation of the same. However, what to talk of sufficient cause, no cause is made out for condonation of inordinate delay of more than 20 years.

In a recent judgment rendered by Hon''ble Apex Court in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and Anr. 2010 (2) RCR(Civil) 284, law on the point of condonation of delay in filing the appeal has been summed up as under:

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. 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 and Another Vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, , N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy, and Vedabai @ Vaijayanatabai Baburao Pateil Vs. Shantaram Baburao Patil and Others, . 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, Major and Ors Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore, , State of Haryana Vs. Chandra Mani and others, , State of U. P. and others Vs. Harish Chandra and others, , State of Bihar Vs. Ratan Lal Sahu and Others, , State of Nagaland Vs. Lipok AO and Others, , and State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ahmed Jaan 2008 (4) R.C.R. (Cri) 119 : 2008 (4) RCR(Civil) 126: 2008 (4) SCT 25: 2008 (2) RCR (Rent) 234: 2008 (5) RAJ 214: (2008) 14 SCC 582.

Hence, taking into consideration the fact that there is delay of more than 20 years and no sufficient cause has been made out by the Petitioner-Plaintiff, I am of the view that it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned Additional District Judge, Mohali, in dismissing the application for condonation of delay filed by present Petitioner-Plaintiff and as a consequence thereof, dismissing the appeal and that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court.

Moreover, law is well settled in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and Ors. 2004 (1) RCR (Civil) 147 that mere error of fact or law cannot be corrected in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction by this Court. This Court can interfere only when the error is manifest and apparent on the face of proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law and that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby.

Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit.