Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harnek Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 18 January, 2023
224 CM-3171-LPA-2019 in/and -1-
LPA-1445-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CM-3171-LPA-2019 in/and
LPA-1445-2019
Date of Decision: 18.01.2023
Harnek Singh
......Appellant
Vs.
State of Punjab and others .........Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN
Present: Mr. G.S. Nagra, Advocate, with
Mr. B.S. Mann, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr. Abhay Pal Singh Gill, D.A.G., Punjab.
Mr. Vaneet Thakur, Advocate, for
Mr. B.S. Seemar, Advocate,
for respondent No. 5.
*****
G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J. (ORAL)
The present appeal is preferred against the order of the learned
Single Judge, dated 16.11.2015, passed in CWP-3179-2012, dismissing the
prayer of the appellant for quashing the orders dated 30.10.2009
(Annexure P-2) passed by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District
Collector, SAS Nagar Mohali, appointing respondent No. 5 Jaik Ram as
'Lambardar' of Village Majria, Tehsil Kharar, District SAS Nagar, as well
as the order dated 24.01.2012 (Annexure P-4), passed by respondent No. 1-
Financial Commissioner, Revenue, affirming the order of the Deputy
Commissioner.
The appeal is delayed by 1315 days and the averments made in
the application for condonation of delay of 1315 days in filing the appeal
are that one Sh. G.S. Kaler, Advocate, practicing in District Court,
1 of 5
224 CM-3171-LPA-2019 in/and -2-
LPA-1445-2019
Chandigarh, was engaged for filing the LPA and the same was not filed.
The appellant has then gone to the office of the counsel on 26.07.2019 after
a period of 04 years and obtained the papers and therefore, the delay is
sought to be condoned.
The appeal was thereafter, filed on 31.07.2019 before this
Court. The application has been opposed by filing a reply by the private
respondents while submitting that the law helps those who are vigilant over
their rights but will not help those who sleep on their rights. It has been
averred that there is no sufficient cause given for condoning the delay and
neither any action nor any complaint was filed against the said counsel.
The prescribed period of limitation is 30 days for filing a LPA and there is
nothing on record to show that the said counsel has ever been engaged by
the appellant.
In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the
matter is not liable to be reopened at this belated stage, as the dispute is
regarding the appointment of the 'Lambardar' of the village. It would
amount to putting the clock back on account of the conduct as such of the
appellant himself. In this regard, reliance can be placed upon the judgment
of the Supreme Court in Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee
of Reghunathpur Nafar Academy and others 2013 (12) SCC 649,
wherein delay of 2449 days had been condoned by the Division Bench of
the Calcutta High Court but Hon'ble the Apex Court had set aside the same
by holding as under:-
"15. From the aforesaid authorities the principles
that can broadly be culled out are:
i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-ori-
ented, non- pedantic approach while dealing with
2 of 5
224 CM-3171-LPA-2019 in/and -3-
LPA-1445-2019
an application for condonation of delay, for the
courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are
obliged to remove injustice.
ii) The terms "sufficient cause" should be under-
stood in their proper spirit, philosophy and pur-
pose regard being had to the fact that these terms
are basically elastic and are to be applied in prop-
er perspective to the obtaining fact- situation.
iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal
the technical considerations should not be given
undue and uncalled for emphasis.
iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate
causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part
of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of.
v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking
condonation of delay is a significant and relevant
fact.
vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict
proof should not affect public justice and cause
public mischief because the courts are required to
be vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate there is
no real failure of justice.
vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encap-
sule the conception of reasonableness and it cannot
be allowed a totally unfettered free play.
viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay
and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the
former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to
the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the
first one warrants strict approach whereas the sec-
ond calls for a liberal delineation.
ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party
relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant
factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the
fundamental principle is that the courts are re-
quired to weigh the scale of balance of justice in
3 of 5
224 CM-3171-LPA-2019 in/and -4-
LPA-1445-2019
respect of both parties and the said principle can-
not be given a total go by in the name of liberal ap-
proach.
x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the
grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the
courts should be vigilant not to expose the other
side unnecessarily to face such a litigation.
xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away
with fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation by
taking recourse to the technicalities of law of limi-
tation.
xii) The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully
scrutinized and the approach should be based on
the paradigm of judicial discretion which is found-
ed on objective reasoning and not on individual
perception.
16. To the aforesaid principles we may add some
more guidelines taking note of the present day scenario.
They are: -
a) An application for condonation of delay should be
drafted with careful concern and not in a half hazard
manner harbouring the notion that the courts are
required to condone delay on the bedrock of the
principle that adjudication of a lis on merits is seminal
to justice dispensation system.
b) An application for condonation of delay should not be
dealt with in a routine manner on the base of individual
philosophy which is basically subjective.
c) Though no precise formula can be laid down regard
being had to the concept of judicial discretion, yet a
conscious effort for achieving consistency and
collegiality of the adjudicatory system should be made
as that is the ultimate institutional motto.
d) The increasing tendency to perceive delay as a non-
serious matter and, hence, lackadaisical propensity can
4 of 5
224 CM-3171-LPA-2019 in/and -5-
LPA-1445-2019
be exhibited in a non-challant manner requires to be
curbed, of course, within legal parameters."
Thus, keeping in view the above, we are of the considered
opinion, that the explanation given is fanciful as such and it is hard to
accept the fact that a person who is agitating for the right as a 'Lambardar'
of the village, would sleep over his rights over 04 years and even not visit
his counsel after entrusting him the papers. The said counsel engaged to
file the appeal on behalf of the appellant is also not practicing in this Court
but in the District Court, as per the application and therefore we are further
not able to accept the fact that the counsel who does not ordinarily appear
before this Court would be engaged for the said purpose.
Resultantly, we do not find any ground to condone the delay of
1315 days in filing the appeal.
Accordingly, the application as well as the main appeal is
hereby dismissed.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
JUDGE
January 18, 2023 (HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN)
nitin JUDGE
Whether Speaking Yes
Whether Reportable No
5 of 5
