Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jasbir Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 4 July, 2024
Author: Suvir Sehgal
Bench: Suvir Sehgal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:083495
CM-12861-C-2023 in/and
RSA-3590-2023 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
257 CM-12861-C-2023 in/and
RSA-3590-2023
Date of decision:04.07.2024
JASBIR SINGH ...APPELLANT
VS.
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present: Ms. Anju Arora, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Anil Bansal, DAG, Punjab.
***
SUVIR SEHGAL J.
1. This application has been filed under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of delay of 3090 days in the
filing of the regular second appeal.
2. Ms. Anju Arora, counsel for the applicant/appellant submits
that after the dismissal of the first appeal on 14.12.2015, the applicant
engaged Sh. S.K. Sharma, Advocate, who was representing him before
the Courts below to institute the appeal before the High Court. He was
paid the professional fee, Vakalatnama was signed and other documents
were handed over to him. Counsel submits that the applicant/appellant
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:083495
CM-12861-C-2023 in/and
was informed that the appeal has been instituted and it would be listed in
due course. Applicant kept on pursuing the matter with the counsel, who
unfortunately expired on 30.08.2020. The applicant contacted Sh. Puneet
Sharma, Advocate, son of the deceased counsel, who kept on dilly
dallying. When the applicant came to Chandigarh on 07.08.2023 to
inquire about the status of the appeal from the High Court, he was
surprised to know that the appeal had never been filed. He obtained the
certified copy of the judgment passed by learned Additional District
Judge in August, 2023 and instituted the present appeal on 14.09.2023,
which has occasioned in a delay of 3090 days. Counsel submits that as
the delay was beyond the control of the applicant and had arisen due to
the default of the counsel, the same may be condoned.
3. I have heard counsel for the appellant and considered her
submissions.
4. Applicant was working as a Constable and was dismissed from
service on account of absence from duty. He filed a suit for declaration
before the Court at Chandigarh challenging the dismissal orders, which
after contest was dismissed by the Trial Court by judgment and decree
dated 02.05.2014. Applicant remained unsuccessful in the first appeal,
which was rejected on 14.12.2015. Applicant claims to have engaged the
same counsel, who was representing him throughout for institution of the
second appeal.
5. Applicant is a literate person and was a member of disciplined
force. Although he claims that he had engaged a counsel for filing of the
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:083495
CM-12861-C-2023 in/and
second appeal, but he could not produce any proof or document to show
that the counsel had actually been engaged. Not only this, applicant has
even failed to mentioned the date or month when the counsel was
engaged. It is not possible to believe it that the applicant simply relied
upon the verbal assurance of the counsel that the appeal has been
instituted and did not attempt to find out at his own level by checking up
the online status of the appeal from the website of the High Court. Paper-
book shows that the applicant is a resident of Fatehgarh Sahib, which is
barely 50 kms. from Chandigarh, and he could have easily verified the
status from the High Court registry personally. But he did not do so for
years together. This Court is of the opinion that the colossal delay
remains unexplained nor the reason assigned, is genuine.
6. A litigant is required to be diligent in pursuing his matter
before the higher Court. The length of the delay is not the crucial factor,
but the reason for the delay has to be sufficiently explained. If there is a
genuine reason in not filing the appeal within the prescribed time and the
same has been sufficiently explained in the application, which is
supported with an affidavit, with a plausible reason supported by
documents, this Court would examine it and condone the delay.
However, where the cause is insufficient and explanation lacks credence,
the Court cannot in a casual manner overlook the delay and condone it.
7. In Basawaraj and another Versus Special Land Acquisition
Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81, Supreme Court has observed that in case a
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:083495
CM-12861-C-2023 in/and
party is found to be negligent or for want of bona fide on his part or is
found to have acted diligently or remained inactive, that cannot furnish a
sufficient ground to condone the delay. In case, no sufficient cause is
made out, the Court, without any justification, should not condone the
delay.
8. It is evident that the applicant has failed to give sufficient
cause for seeking condonation of delay. Application has been filed in a
cavalier fashion and the reasons given therein lack bona fide.
9. As a result, this Court does not find it a fit case to condone the
delay and the application for condonation of 3090 days in the filing of
the appeal is dismissed.
10. Consequently, main appeal is also dismissed as being barred
by time.
04.07.2024 (SUVIR SEHGAL)
sheetal JUDGE
Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
