Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaswant Singh And Ors. vs Assistant Registrar, Co-Op. Societies ... on 1 November, 1999
Equivalent citations: (2000)126PLR83
Author: Iqbal Singh
Bench: Iqbal Singh
JUDGMENT
Iqbal Singh J.
1. A suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the present appellants was dismissed by the trial Court by judgment and decree dated 22, 1995. Appeal there against was dismissed by judgment appeal dated 11.4.1998. Plaintiffs filed the present appeal after the expiry of period of limitation. Along with the appeal, they also filed application Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay. It was stated that the counsel for the appellants informed them late about the dismissal of the appeal and it was on 1.7.1998 that one of the appellants, Mihan Singh contacted the counsel and came to know of the dismissal of the appeal by the lower appellate Court. The appellants thereafter engaged a counsel for filing appeal in this Court and also went in Central Jail where one of the appellants was lodged, to get the power of attorney signed. The counsel thereafter took five to six days in preparing and filing the appeal. It was thus submitted that this is how the delay of 18 days occurred in filing the appeal, which is not intentional and, therefore, deserves to be condoned.
2. Upon notice of the application, counsel for the respondents put in appearance.
3. The only ground that has been alleged in the application for the delay is that the counsel for the appellants in the lower appellate Court had told them that there was no need of their coming to the Court and they would be informed of the result whenever the appeal was decided. As noticed above, appeal was dismissed by the lower appellate Court on 1,4.1998, and the appellants claim to have come to know about this only on 10.7.1998 i.e. after more than three months. The reason explained by the appellants for delay, though of 18 days only, is as a matter of fact not believable. It cannot otherwise be recognised by law, for once such a ground is accepted and consequently delay is condoned, it will thus be open to all to press this ground into service, which is conveniently available and for which perhaps no proof could possibly be neither asked nor produced. The general rule of land on the subject is that once a litigant approaches the Court of law for remedying his grievance, whether in person on through some pleader, he is at least expected to remain in touch with the matter or such pleader whom he has engaged for that purpose. There is yet another widely accepted principle on this point that a party seeking condonation of delay must make out a sufficient cause and explain each day's if not each hour's delay giving valid and cogent reasons by which it might have been prevented from approaching the Court within the period of limitation prescribed by law. Similarly, delay can also not be condoned on equity. The observations of the apex Court in P.K. Ramchandran v. State of Kerala and Anr., (1998-3)120 P.L.R. 605 (S.C.) which read as under, may be read with advantage:-
"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."
In view of the reasons above said, I am of the opinion that the appellants have not been able to show sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Civil Misc. is dismissed and consequently the appeal is also dismissed, being barred by time.