- (1.) Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed in first Appeal from Order is for disposal.
(2.) Additional District Judge, Faridkot decided on application under Section 31 of the State Financial Corporation Act on September 22, 1988. Application for obtaining certified copy of the same was filed on the same day. The copy was ready for delivery on November 4, 1988. The punjab Financial Corporation, the appellant, engaged Mr. Somesh Ojha, Advocate, for filing an appeal on November 21, 1988. That is well within the period of limitation provided for the appeal. The only ground given in the application for condonation of delay is that the counsel thought that for filing an appeal in the High Court, the period of limitation was 90 days which is the period for filing general appeals in the High Court and thus there was delay of filing the appeal in the High Court of about 59 days. The aplication has been opposed on behalf of the respondent. It has been argued that if due diligence had been shown by looking at the Punjab Financial Corporation Act, the counsel would have come to know that the period of filing an appeal in this case was only 30 days and on that ground the application for condonation of delay should be dismissed. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in Gajjan Singh v. Ram Lok, 1978 AIR(P&H) 307. On the facts of that case, it was held that mistake committed by the counsel was not bona fide and the delay in filing the appeal could not be condoned. On going through the facts of the case, I find that the delay occurred on account of wrong advice given by the counsel to the client. Be that as it may, the Supreme Court considered the matter in M/s Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi and Others, 1979 AIR(SC) 1666 where the mistake occurred on account of miscalculation of the period of limitation by the officers of the company on whose behalf the appeal was filed and there was advice also of the Legal Adviser. The Supreme Court observed in para 7 of the judgment as under :- "If Legal Adviser's opinions are to be subjected by company managers to further legal scrutiny of their own, an impossible situation may arise. Indeed Government, a large litigant in this country, may find itself in difficulty. That is the reason why we have chosen to explain at this length the application of Section 5 vis-a-vis counsel's mistake."
(3.) Again, the Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Another v. Mst. Katiji and Others, 1987 AIR(SC) 1353 held that the Court should adopt liberal approach in the matter of condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The following six principles were laid down :- "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 national 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 non-deliberate delay. 5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately 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.";