Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhwinder Singh vs President, Shiromani Gurdwara ... on 26 April, 2024
Author: G.S. Sandhawalia
Bench: G.S. Sandhawalia
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057191-DB
Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:057191 -DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(107) LPA-1030-2024 (O&M)
Decided on : 26.04.2024
Sukhwinder Singh
......Appellant(s)
Versus
Shiromani Gurudwara Parbandhak Committee, Amritsar through its President
and others
......Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI
Present: Mr. Aruz Khan, Advocate for the appellant.
*****
G.S. Sandhawalia, Acting Chief Justice (Oral)
Present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment of
the learned Single Judge passed in CWP No.21396 of 2022 decided on
19.09.2022, whereby the learned Single Judge did not interfere in the order of
dismissal. The present appeal is barred by 552 days and the sufficient cause
which is sought to be made out that after his dismissal the appellant mostly
remained under severe depression and shock and he was not aware that to
whom the documents of the case were handed over. It has further been averred
that when the family members were unsuccessful in filing the appeal on time,
then the appellant contacted the counsel and appeal has been then filed.
2. A perusal of the paper-book would go on to show that the appeal
has been filed on 23.04.2024 almost a year and half later. Delay is substantial
and cause which is sought to be made out does not inspire any confidence.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057191-DB
LPA-1030-2024 (O&M) -2-
Nothing has been produced on record to show that the appellant was under
severe depression and shock. It is apparent that the appellant was not
interested in challenging the order further. The law is laid down in this regard
by the Apex Court that indolent litigant would not be granted indulgence, as it
is an voluntary act having not preferred his remedy. Reliance can be placed
upon the judgment in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs.
Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation & another, (2010) 5 SCC
459. Relevant observation reads as under:
"8. We have considered the respective submissions. The law of
limitation is founded on public policy. The legislature does not
prescribe limitation with the object of destroying the rights of the
parties but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek
remedy without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy must be
kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. To put it differently, the
law of limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be
availed for redress of the legal injury. At the same time, the courts are
bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is
shown for not availing the remedy within the stipulated time. The
expression "sufficient cause" employed in Section 5 of the Indian
Limitation Act, 1963 and similar other statutes is elastic enough to
enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub
serves the ends of justice. Although, no hard and fast rule can be laid
down in dealing with the applications for condonation of delay, this
Court has justifiably advocated adoption of a liberal approach in
condoning the delay of short duration and a stricter approach where the
delay is inordinate - Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst.
Katiji (1987) 2 SCC 107, N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (1998)
7 SCC 123 and Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil (2001) 9 SCC
106. In dealing with the applications for condonation of delay filed on
behalf of the State and its agencies/instrumentalities this Court has,
while emphasizing that same yardstick should be applied for deciding
the applications for condonation of delay filed by private individuals
and the State, observed that certain amount of latitude is not
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057191-DB
LPA-1030-2024 (O&M) -3-
impermissible in the latter case because the State represents collective
cause of the community and the decisions are taken by the
officers/agencies at a slow pace and encumbered process of pushing
the files from table to table consumes considerable time causing delay
- G. Ramegowda v. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer (1988) 2 SCC 142,
State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani (1996) 3 SCC 132, State of U.P. v.
Harish Chandra (1996) 9 SCC 309, State of Bihar v. Ratan Lal Sahu
(1996) 10 SCC 635, State of Nagaland v. Lipok Ao (2005) 3 SCC 752,
and State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ahmed Jaan (2008) 14 SCC 582."
3. Resultantly, there is no merit in the application for condonation of
delay and same is hereby dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal also stands
dismissed.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
(LAPITA BANERJI)
26.04.2024 JUDGE
Naveen
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether Reportable : No
3 of 3
