IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (112) CM-17892-CII-2025 in/and FAO-5342-2025 Date of Decision : September 24, 2025 Tarlochan Singh .. Appellant Versus Varinder Kaur .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMARI Present: Ms. Ramandeep Kaur Brar, Advocate, for Mr. Monty Goyal, Advocate, for the appellant.

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)

1. Present appeal has been filed along with an application for condonation of delay of 1928 days in filing the appeal.

2. The averments made in the present application seeking condonation of delay of 1928 days in filing the accompanying appeal, are as under:-

“ That the delay is filing in appeal is occurred due to the fact that the appellant is a old age person and suffering from various ailments and also not aware about the limitation period for filing appeal before this Hon’ble Court and appellant approached the undersigned last week of August, 2025 and undersigned prepared the appeal and now today the appeal is being filed before this Hon’ble High Court without any further delay and therefore, delay has occurred for 1928 days in filing the appeal.

That delay in filing the appeal is neither intentionally nor wilfully but due to the fact mentioned above.”

3. A bare perusal of the above would show that not even a single valid reason has been brought on record to show that the delay was bond fide and the same occurred due to the circumstances which were beyond the control of the appellant.

4. As per the settled principle of law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 2474-2475 of 2012 titled as Office of the Chief Post Master General and others Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and another, decided on 24.02.2012, each day’s delay is to be explained so as to satisfy the Court that the delay caused was beyond the control of the applicants-respondents. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are as under:-

“2. The following issues arise for consideration:

a) Whether the Office of the Chief Post Master General has shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 427 days in filing SLPs before this Court. Depending on the outcome of the above issue, other issues to be considered are:

b) Whether the impugned advertisement inserted in the Reader's Digest issue of December, 2005 is in conformity with the requirement of law.

c) Whether the Department has made out a case for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India to reopen concurrent findings of fact rendered by the High Court.

xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx.

13. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the Government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bona fide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The Government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for Government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.

14. In view of our conclusion on issue (a), there is no need to go into the merits of the issues (b) and (c). The question of law raised is left open to be decided in an appropriate case. In the light of the above discussion, the appeals fail and are dismissed on the ground of delay. No order as to costs.”

5. Thereafter, again the same questi