Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balraj Singh vs Gurcharan Singh And Ors on 27 January, 2025
Author: Vikas Bahl
Bench: Vikas Bahl
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:012780
CR-493-2025 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(124)
CR-493-2025
Date of decision: - 27.01.2025
Balraj Singh
....Petitioner
Versus
Gurcharan Singh and others
.....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present:- Mr. Arun Bansal, Advocate,
for the petitioner. (Through VC).
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
1. Present civil revision petition has been filed under Article
227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 115 CPC for setting
aside the impugned order dated 03.12.2024 (Annexure P-6).
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the
application for condonation of delay, no valid reason has been given for
condoning the delay yet without there being any valid reason, the
impugned order dated 03.12.2024 has been passed vide which the delay
has been condoned. It is further submitted that the present suit was filed
in the year 2012 and was decided after a period of 10 years and thus, the
petitioner has been harassed since 2012 and Damocles' Sword is still
hanging over the head of the petitioner. It is submitted that in view of the
same, the impugned order be set aside and the application filed by
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:012780
respondent No.1 for condonation of delay be dismissed.
3. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
has perused the paper-book and finds that the impugned order has been
rightly passed and the present revision petition being meritless, deserves
to be dismissed for the reasons detailed hereinafter.
4. It is a matter of settled law that every endeavour should be
made by the Courts to decide the case on merits instead of technicalities.
In the said regard, reference can be made to the judgment of the
Honb'le Supreme Court in case titled as "Collector, Land Acquisition,
Anantnag and another Vs. Mst. Katiji and others reported as (1987)
2 Supreme Court Cases 107, the relevant portion of which is as
under: -
"xxx xxx xxx And such a liberal approach is adopted on
principle as it is realized that:
1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an
appeal late.
2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter
being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice
being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the
highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on
merits after hearing the parties.
3. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean that a
pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's
delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a
rational common sense pragmatic manner.
4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are
pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves
to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested
right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.
5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately,
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:012780
or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala
fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay.
In fact he runs a serious risk.
6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of
its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but
because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to
do so.
Making a justice-oriented approach from this perspective,
there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay in the institution of
the appeal."
5. In the present case, it would be relevant to note that
respondents No.1, 4 and 5 had filed a suit for declaration, joint possession
and permanent injunction with respect to suit land measuring 120 kanal 6
marlas and were claiming shares in the same. The said suit was dismissed
vide judgment and decree dated 05.01.2023 (Annexure P-1). The appeal
against the said judgment was filed on 27.07.2023 and alongwith the said
appeal, an application for condonation of delay was also filed on
27.07.2023 (Annexure P-4). In the said application, it was specifically
averred that the plaintiff-Gurcharan Singh son of Karnail Singh had been
residing abroad and had not come to India since 2013 and that Surjit
Kaur, who is the wife of Gurcharan Singh and the attorney of said
Gurcharan Singh, had come to India in May, 2023 and thereafter, had
obtained the jamabandi of the suit land and it had then transpired that the
defendants had got entered some mutation of transfer on the basis of the
judgment and decree dated 31.01.2023 passed in some other suit against
which an appeal had already been preferred. It was further averred that
further enquiries were made and it had then transpired that the present suit
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:012780
had also been decided vide judgment and decree dated 05.01.2023 and
thereafter, she had obtained the certified copy of the same and the appeal
was filed without any further delay. The 1st Appellate Court vide order
dated 03.12.2024 had observed that there was a reasonable explanation
for the delay of 174 days and that it is a well settled principle of law that
when justice is at stake, technical or pedantic approach should not be
adopted and a reference was made to the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in case titled as "Dhiraj Singh Vs. State of Haryana",
(2014) 14 SCC 127.
6. This Courts find that the reasons given in the delay
application to the effect that respondent No.1-plaintiff was residing
abroad since 2013 and even his wife, who was the power of attorney
holder, had only come back to India in May, 2023 and subsequently after
making enquiries had learnt about the passing of the present judgment
and decree dated 05.01.2023, is sufficient explanation for the Court to
have condoned the delay. Moreover, a perusal of the memo of parties
would show that Gurcharan Singh-plaintiff was 66 years old in the year
2012 and presently, would be more than 76 years of age and even his wife
Surjit Kaur is stated to be 76 years as per the application (Annexure P-4)
and further a perusal of the judgment and decree dated 05.01.2023 would
also show that substantial rights with respect to the suit land measuring
120 kanals 6 marlas are involved and thus, the appeal filed before the
Appellate Court should be decided on merits and not on technicalities. It
is a matter of settled law that when substantial justice and technical
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:012780
considerations are pitted against each other, the cause for substantial
justice deserves to be preferred. Moreover, by condoning the delay, the 1st
Appellate Court has followed the said principle of law and this Court
while exercising its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
finds no ground to interfere in the impugned order dated 03.12.2024
(Annexure P-6).
7. Keeping in view the above-said facts and circumstances, the
impugned order is in accordance with law and deserves to be upheld and
the present revision petition being meritless, deserves to be dismissed and
is accordingly dismissed.
( VIKAS BAHL )
January 27, 2025 JUDGE
naresh.k
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes
Whether reportable? Yes
5 of 5
