Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. - (1.) BY way of present appeal filed by a person who was not even party before the trial court seeks to revive a matter which had been settled by the judgment and decree dated 19.9.1975 passed by the Sikh Gurdwaras Tribunal, Punjab at Chandigarh (in short "the Tribunal") whereby the petition under Section 10 of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") filed by Lakhinder Singh and Balwinder Singh (respondents No. 3 and 4), Chelas and legal representatives of deceased Mahant Chand Singh, was disposed of on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties. The facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeal as narrated therein may be noticed. Dera Baba Bhai Ram Singh was situated at village Kot Fatta, District Bathinda and being a religious place, the working was supervised by Mahants from long time. Earlier, in 1970, Mahant Chand Singh was the supervisor of the Dera and due to his untimely death, Mahant Sukhpal Singh was appointed as his legal representative and next on the seat of the supervisor. In the year 1973, respondents No. 3 and 4 claiming to be the legal representatives of Mahant Chand Singh filed a petition under Section 10 of the Act before the Tribunal. During the pendency of the said petition, respondents No. 3 and 4 entered into a compromise with respondent No. 2. As per the said compromise, the Dera was declared as notified Sikh Gurudwara and the title of the land measuring 799 kanals 7 marlas belonging to said Gurudwara was decided in favour of respondent No. 2 and respondents No. 3 and 4 were given 118 and 120 kanals of land out of the said land during their lifetime for their survival. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 filed a civil suit under Section 2SA of the Act before the District Judge, Bathinda against respondents No. 3 and 4 for getting the decree for possession of the said land which was decided in favour of respondent No. 2 and symbolic possession thereof was given to respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 did not made any application for incorporating the decision dated 19.9.1975 passed by the Tribunal in the revenue record and it was only in the year 2011, respondent No. 2 moved an application to the Deputy Commissioner, Bathinda for incorporating their ownership in the revenue record. The Deputy Commissioner, Bathinda vide order dated 19.7.2011 directed the Tehsildar for incorporation of the ownership of respondent No. 2 in the revenue record. Hence, the present appeal. Since the appeal is barred by time, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for brevity "1963 Act") for condonation of 13412 days' delay has been filed.
(2.) WE have heard learned counsel for the appellant. The primary question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether there is sufficient cause for condonation of colossal delay of 13412 days in filing the appeal before this Court.
(3.) EXAMINING the legal position relating to condonation of delay under Section 5 of the 1963 Act, it may be observed that the Supreme Court in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and another, : (2010)5 S.C.C. 459 laying down the broad principles for adjudicating the issue of condonation of delay, in paras 14 & 15 observed as under: - "14. 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. 15. 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 (L.A.) v. Katiji N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy and Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil.";