RAJIVE BHALLA, J. - (1.) CHALLENGE in this revision petition is to an order, dated 9.4.2007, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar, dismissing the petitioners' appeal as barred by limitation.
(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioners submits that the appellate Court failed to condone the nominal delay of 12 days. The delay was occasioned by a divergence of opinion as to the filing of the appeal between the District Attorney and the Director, Prosecution and Litigation on the one hand and the Under Secretary to the Government of Punjab on the other. As the opinion of the Under Secretary to the Government of Punjab prevailed and the petitioners were directed to file an appeal, sufficient cause for delay in presentation of the appeal was made out by the petitioners. The sufficient cause, averred in the application, was duly supported by an affidavit and fortified by the deposition of AW1-Manjit Singh, Divisional Soil Conservation Officer. The appellate Court, however, dismissed the application by holding that the original documents were not placed. It is prayed that in matters of condonation of delay, where sufficient cause is shown, Courts have always leaned towards an adjudication on merits and, therefore, the appellate Court erred in dismissing the application for condonation of delay. Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that a defaulting party is required to establish sufficient cause strictly, as in the absence of a cogent explanation, delay cannot be condoned. The appellate Court, after considering all relevant facts, including the pleadings and the statement of AW1-Manjit Singh, dismissed the application for condonation of delay on the ground that the explanation, furnished by the petitioners, did not disclose sufficient cause.
(3.) I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.;