Delhi High Court
Aligarh Muslim University & Ors. vs Suchita Nayyar on 15 February, 2011
Author: Indermeet Kaur
A-2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 15.02.2011
+ RSA No.3/2008
ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY & ORS. ...........Appellants
Through: Mr.Anish Dayal and
Mr.Abhimanyu Garg and
Mr.Ranbir Datta,
Advocates.
Versus
SUCHITA NAYYAR ..........Respondent.
Through: Ms. Anjana Prabhakar,
Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Yes
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
1. This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated
1.08.2007 which had dismissed the first appeal filed by the
appellant i.e. Aligarh Muslim University and others on the ground
that the delay of 85 days had not been explained in filing the
appeal.
2. The present suit had been filed by Smt. Suchita Nayyar
against the Aligarh Muslim University for recovery of
Rs.2,73,326/-. It was based on delivery of goods supplied by the
plaintiff to the defendant. The oral and documentary evidence had
been led by the respective parties before the Trial Judge. The suit
of the plaintiff had been decreed.
3. The first appeal had been filed by the appellant. Without
going into the merits of the case, the appeal had been dismissed on
the ground of limitation. It was stated that the delay of 85 days
had not been explained by the appellants.
4. In the body of the application filed before the first Appellate
Court (under Section 5 of the Limitation Act), the appellant had
submitted that after passing of the decree on 29.10.2005, the
certified copy of the same had been applied for on 17.11.2005. It
was delivered on 21.11.2005. The limitation for filing the appeal
expired on 04.12.2005. The appeal was however filed on
25.02.2006. There was an intervening delay of 85 days. In this
application which had been filed before the First Appellate Court,
the following was the explanation given by the appellant. It was
stated that the appellant being the University, the certified copy of
the judgment and decree had been sent to the office of the
Registrar who had granted permission to file the appeal on
15.12.2005. The counsel was contacted on 17.12.2005. The said
counsel had to leave for urgent personal work and was back only in
the first week of January 2006. Admittedly, there were winter
vacations during this period i.e. between Christmas to the second
day of January 2006. Court fee could not be obtained; the
procedure for release of cash money for payment of the court fee
took time; amount was received on 03.02.2006; after obtaining the
court fee, the appeal had been filed after the approval and
signatures of the appellant authority. This was the explanation
furnished by the appellant.
5. In 2005 SSC 752 State of Nagaland Vs. Lipok Ao and Others,
the Supreme Court has reiterated the oft noted proposition that the
provisions of Section 5 of the limitation Act have to be construed
liberally so as to advance substantial justice. It had noted that
although no special indulgence can be shown to the Government
which, in similar circumstances, is not shown to an individual
suitor, a practical view has to be taken of the working of the
Government without being unduly indulgent to the slow motion of
its wheels.
6. In this background, the explanation furnished by the
appellant which is a Government Department is accepted. The
delay in filing the appeal before the first appellate court is
condoned. The matter is remanded back to the First
Appellate Court to decide it on merits. For the said purpose,
parties will appear before the learned District and Sessions Judge,
Tis Hazari Courts on 28th February at 10.30 am.
7. Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
FEBRUARY 15, 2011
ss
