VINOD K.SHARMA, J. - (1.) PRESENT regular second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Hisar vide which the appeal filed by the plaintiff-appellant has been ordered to be dismissed on the ground of limitation as the application made for condonation of delay was ordered to be dismissed.
(2.) THE appeal was filed by the appellant with delay of 22 days and the reason given for such delay was that the plaintiff-appellant remained ill from 10.10.1998 to 28.10.1998. However, the said plea was rejected on the ground that limitation for filing the appeal was only up to 6.10.1998. It was further observed that the plaintiff firm had two partners and therefore, signatures of one partner was not a ground for condonation of delay. Learned lower appellate court also came to the conclusion that the limitation cannot be given a complete go by and a party is bound to give an explanation. Learned lower appellate court placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala and another, 1997(4) RCR(Civil) 242 : AIR 1998 Supreme Court 2276 to come to the conclusion that even if the law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour. It was further observed that the delay cannot be condoned on equitable grounds and consequently application for condoning the delay was rejected. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another v. Mst. Katiji and others, AIR 1987 SC 1353 to contend that the court should adopt liberal approach in condoning the delay as by condoning the delay the party get right to have their matter adjudicated on merit. Para No. 3 of the said judgment reads as under :- "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."
(3.) LEARNED senior counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vedabai alias Vaijayantabai Baburao Patil v. Shantaram Baburao Patil and others, 2001(3) RCR(Civil) 831 : AIR 2001 SC 2582 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to lay down as under :- "5. In exercising discretion under Section 5 of the Limitation Act the Courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case the consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a relevant factor so the case calls for a more cautious approach but in the latter case no such consideration may arise and such a case deserves a liberal approach. No hard and fast rule can be laid down in this regard. The Court has to exercise the discretion on the facts of each case keeping in mind that in construing the expression 'sufficient cause', the principle of advancing substantial justice is of prime importance. In our view in this case, the approach of the learned Civil Judge is wholly erroneous and his order is unsustainable. It is evident that the discretion under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is exercised by the Civil Judge in contravention of the law laid down by this Court, that the expression 'sufficient cause' should receive liberal construction, in catena of decisions.........." ;