IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

292 RSA-280-2020(O&M)

Date of decision: 04.12.2025 Savinder Singh Sidhu ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

State of Punjab & Another ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Sunil Sihag, Advocate for the appellant.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J. CM-733-C-2020 This is an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 178 days in filing the appeal.

The reason given in the application seeking condonation of delay of 178 days is contained in Para 3 of the application, which is as under:-

“3. That the Appellant is an agriculturist as well as practicing lawyer in Tehsil Complex, Guruharsahai. On 09.01.2018, he came to the District Court, Ferozepur in some other matter and there, in District Courts, Ferozepur. he was supplied certified copy of judgment but inadvertently he kept the said judgment in the case brief, which was listed on the said date, so that in evening while reaching home, he can take out the said copy of judgment. However, in the evening, Appellant forgot to take out the judgment from the brief and even forgot to tell his Clerk that they have received the copy. Hence, copy was kept remain in the case brief and in the evening, Clerk while managing the Peshi, kept the brief in the next date of hearing and accordingly, it was lost.”

The above cited reason is vague and does not constitute sufficient cause to condone extraordinary delay of 178 days in filing the present appeal. It is cardinal principle of law that delay of each day has to be explained. In this regard, reliance may also be placed upon recent judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Shivamma (Dead) by LRs Vs. Karnataka Housing Board & Others” Civil Appeal No.11794 of 2025 decided on 12.09.2025. As such, no ground is made out for condoning inordinate delay of 178 days. Present application accordingly stands dismissed CM-734-C-2020 This is an application under Section 151 CPC for condonation of delay of 323 days in re-filing the appeal.

The only reason given for condoning such inordinate delay is in Para 2 of the application, as under: -

“2. That after obtaining the paperbook of the appeal from the registry by the clerk of the counsel for the appellant, it was misplaced in the office of the counsel. During shifting the record the clerk of the counsel found the present appeal. During this period of delay has occurred in filing the present appeal, the instant appeal is being refilled without any further delay.”

The above reason given by the appellant is vague. The Law of Limitation is enacted with a purpose, as a handmaid of Justice and cannot be ignored/reduced to an ineffective piece of legislation by giving it the complete go-by. With passage of time, rights of the parties get crystallised. It is the bounden duty of every litigant to pursue his case diligently; and it is also the bounden duty of this Court to ensure that justice inures to both parties concerned.

More so, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by LRs and others vs. The Special Deputy Collector (LA), Law Finder Doc Id # 2542600, has held that “In order to advance substantial justice, though liberal approach, justice-oriented approach or cause of substantial justice may be kept in mind but the same cannot be used to defeat the substantial law of limitation contained in Section 3of the Limitation Act. ………”

It is my considered view that keeping in mind the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the reasons cited by the applicant for condonation of delay, do not constitute sufficient cause. In view of above, present application is dismissed.

MAIN CASE The plaintiff is in Second Appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below whereby suit for possession filed by the appellant in respect of the suit land as described in the plaint; and for directing the defendants to pay compensation to the appellant for illegal occupation of the suit land from 1980 onwards; and in the a