Punjab-Haryana High Court
Joggi Ram & Ors vs Sewa Singh & Ors on 19 March, 2014
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Civil Revision Nos.1596 & 1534 of 2003 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
1. Civil Revision No.1596 of 2003
Joggi Ram & Ors.
......Petitioners
Versus
Sewa Singh & Ors.
.....Respondents
2. Civil Revision No.1534 of 2003
Zile Singh & Ors.
......Petitioners
Versus
Sewa Singh & Ors.
.....Respondents
Date of Decision: 19.3.2014
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR.
Present: Mr.Jagram Singh Cooner, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.O.P.Sharma, Advocate for the respondents.
MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J. (Oral)
As identical questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, I propose to decide the indicated revision petitions, arising out of the same impugned order between the same parties, by means of this common decision, in order to avoid the repetition.
2. The matrix of the facts and material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant revision petitions and emanating from the record, is that respondents-plaintiffs Sewa Singh, Jita Singh sons of and Parmali daughter of Chander Bhan and another (for brevity "the plaintiffs"), have instituted the civil suit, bearing No.91 of 1998 (in short "1st suit") (subject matter of CR No.1596 of 2003) against Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.03.28 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Civil Revision Nos.1596 & 1534 of 2003 2 petitioners-defendants Joggi Ram s/o Sheo Chand and others (for short "the defendants"), for a decree of declaration to the effect that they are owners and in possession of the suit land. At the same time, the defendants (in 1st suit) have also filed another civil suit, bearing No.69 of 2000 (for brevity "2nd suit") (subject matter of CR No.1534 of 2003) against the plaintiffs (in 1st suit) for a decree of possession. In the wake of application and with the consent of the parties, both the suits were ordered to be consolidated, vide order dated 26.9.1996 by the trial Court. Having completed all the codal formalities, the trial Court decreed the 1st suit filed by the plaintiffs and they were declared owners & in possession and defendants were restrained from dispossessing them and from alienating the land in dispute in any manner, presumably, the 2nd suit filed by the defendants (in 1st suit) was dismissed, by way of common judgment and decree dated 15.6.2000.
3. Aggrieved thereby, they have filed their separate appeals along with the applications u/s 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 80 days in filing the appeals. The appellate Court did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeals as time barred, by virtue of impugned order dated 18.11.2002. They still did not feel satisfied and preferred the present revision petitions to challenge the impugned orders of appellate Court, invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 CPC.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the instant revision petitions deserve to be accepted in this context.
5. As is evident from the record that, the trial Court has decided the suits, vide judgment & decree dated 15.6.2000. The applications for Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.03.28 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Civil Revision Nos.1596 & 1534 of 2003 3 obtaining the certified copies of the documents were filed on 13.7.2000. The copies were prepared on 21.7.2000 and supplied on 24.7.2000, whereas the appeals were filed by the petitioners on 5.9.2000. The applications for condonation of delay were filed on the ground that having obtained all the certified copies and collected the documents, the appeals were filed after the delay of 80 days. The learned counsel has contended with some amount of vehemence that since the trial Court has not specifically decided the 2nd consolidated suit filed by the petitioners, so, they applied for obtaining certified copies of documents. The copying agency prepared only one set of certified copies. In fact, they were required to file two separate appeals against the judgment rendered by the trial Court in two consolidated cases. Then, after obtaining two sets of certified copies of the documents, they filed both the appeals. The applications for condonation of delay were dismissed by the appellate Court. The main grounds, which appear to have been weighed with the appellate Court to negate the plea of petitioners were that they have failed to explain each day's delay and the applications do not disclose the sufficient cause.
6. Here, to me, the appellate Court appears to have slipped into deep legal error in this respect. It is not a matter of dispute that there is a delay of 80 days in filing the appeals, which occurred on account of obtaining two sets of certified copies of documents to file two separate appeals against the judgment rendered by the trial Court in two consolidated cases. Therefore, the petitioners have projected sufficient grounds for condonation of delay in filing the appeals.
7. Not only that, the fundamental jurisprudence and the basic concept of law of limitation is well settled. The Hon'ble Apex Court in cases Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.03.28 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Civil Revision Nos.1596 & 1534 of 2003 4 Ram Nath Sao alias Ram Nath Sahu and others v. Gobardhan Sao and others, AIR 2002 Supreme Court 1201 and The State of West Bengal v. The Administrator, Howrah Municipality and others, (1972) 1 Supreme Court Cases 366 : AIR 1972 SC 749, has reiterated that the expression "sufficient cause" within the meaning of Section 5 of the Act should receive a liberal construction when no mala fide is imputable to a party, so as to advance substantial justice.
8. Likewise, in case Sital Prasad Saxena (dead) by LRs v. Union of India and others, AIR 1985 Supreme Court 1, it was ruled that the Courts should recall that "what has been said umpteen times that rules of procedure are designed to advance justice and should be so interpreted and not to make them penal statutes for punishing erring parties.
9. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases N.Balakrishnan v. M.Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 Supreme Court Cases, 123 and Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another v. Mst.Katiji and others, AIR 1987 Supreme Court 1353, has held that the legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on 'merits'. The expression "sufficient cause" employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub-serves the ends of justice that being the life- purpose for the existence of the institution of Courts. It is common knowledge that this Court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this Court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other Courts in the hierarchy and enumerated the following principles:-
Arvind Kumar Sharma2014.03.28 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Civil Revision Nos.1596 & 1534 of 2003 5
1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.
2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.
3. Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner.
4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.
5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of malafides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk.
6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.
10. Possibly, no one can lose sight of the fact that the decrees for declaration and possession have been passed by the trial court and valuable rights of the petitioners-defendants are involved in the litigation. They were not going to be benefitted in any manner for the delay in filing the appeals. Taking into consideration the nature of litigation and indicated attending circumstances, the Appellate Court ought to have condoned the delay of 80 days in filing the appeals under the present set of circumstances, particularly when the opposite side could possibly be compensated with adequate costs.
11. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant revision petitions are accepted and the impugned order dated 18.11.2002 (in both the petitions) is hereby set aside. Consequently, the applications for condonation of delay are allowed and the delay of 80 days in filing the appeals is hereby condoned in the obtaining circumstances of the case. The Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.03.28 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Civil Revision Nos.1596 & 1534 of 2003 6 Appellate Court is directed to entertain the appeals for regular hearing and dispose of the same in accordance with law. However, this would be subject to the payment of ` 5000/- as costs in each revision petition to be paid by the petitioners to the respondents as compensatory cost.
The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Appellate Court on 22.04.2014 for further proceedings in the matter.
Sd/-
19.3.2014 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR)
AS JUDGE
Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No
Arvind Kumar Sharma
2014.03.28 10:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh