The main legal point established in the judgment is that while a liberal approach should be adopted in considering applications for condonation of delay, the substantial law of limitation should not be overridden without justification for the delay.

Rajiv Sharma, J.

This revision petition is directed against the order dated 18.10.2012 passed by District Judge, Kullu in CMP No.71/12 titled Asha Devi and others Vs. Shyam Sunder and others.

2. “Key facts” necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that petitioners feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 6.8.2007 passed by the Civil Judge, Kullu in Civil Suit No.38 of 2005 preferred Civil Appeal before the District Judge, Kullu. The appeal was barred by limitation. An application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was filed alongwith appeal. The application was dismissed in default on 16.2.2011. Petitioners had engaged one Sh. Hemant Kumar Thakur, Advocate as their counsel. They were told by him that their presence was not required. He had also assured them that he would inform them about the result of the case. They were informed about the next date of hearing, i.e. 29.9.2011. They visited the court on 29.9.2011. However, the case was not called. They approached the Reader of the Court and on inquiry they came to know on 25.11.2011 that the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act was already dismissed on 16.2.2011. The certified copy of order dated 16.2.2011 was applied on 29.11.2011. It was supplied to them on 12.12.2011. Thereafter, one of the petitioners Asha Devi fell ill on 18.1.2012 and remained ill till 24.1.2012. On 25.1.2012, petitioners contacted their counsel at Kullu. He informed that civil courts were closed and shall reopen on 21.2.2012. Thereafter, an application under order 9 rule 3 read with section 151 and under order 41 rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed for restoration of application alongwith application under section 5 of the Limitation Act. According to them, there was no deliberate or intentional delay to file the application.

2. The application was opposed by the respondents. According to them, no sufficient cause has been shown for the condonation of delay and restoration of applications. District Judge dismissed the application on 18.10.2012. Hence, the present petition.

3. Mr. Y.P. Sood has vehemently argued that there is sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the application. He then contended that litigant cannot be made to suffer due to mistake of the counsel. He lastly contended that one of the petitioners Asha Devi had fallen ill.

4. Mr. Rajnish K. Lall appearing vice counsel on behalf of contesting respondents has supported the order passed by the District Judge.

5. Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashishta appearing on behalf of proforma respondent No.4 has supported the contention of Mr. Y.P. Sood.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully.

7. What emerges from the facts enumerated hereinabove is that the application was listed on 16.2.2011. It was dismissed on 16.2.2011 itself. Certified copy was applied on 29.11.2011. It was supplied on 12.12.2011. Though the application was dismissed on 16.2.2011, however, the petitioners visited the court only on 29.9.2011 and thereafter on 25.11.2011. Since the application was dismissed itself on 16.2.2011, next date of hearing could not be fixed as 29.9.2011. The copy has been supplied to the petitioner on 12.12.2011.

7. According to Mr. Y.P. Sood, one of the petitioners fell ill on 18.1.2012 and remained ill till 24.1.2012. Petitioners have not placed on record medical certificate before the learned District Judge. However, fact of the matter is that application has been filed only on 21.2.2012. The delay has not been explained satisfactorily. It is true that the party should not suffer due to mistake of the counsel; however, it cannot be practice only to seek condonation of delay.

8. According to the petitioners, they were told by their counsel about the next date of hearing, i.e. 29.9.2011. Petitioners have not filed the affidavit of the counsel alongwith the application to substantiate their plea that t