Delhi High Court
Union Of India & Anr. vs Sh. Amar Pal Singh on 20 May, 2011
Author: Indermeet Kaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 20.05.2011
+ R.S.A.No. 118/2009
Union of India & Anr. ...........Appellant
Through: Dr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, Advocate
Versus
Sh. Amar Pal Singh ..........Respondent
Through: Mr. S.D. Sharma with Ms.Garima Bhardwaj and Mr.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
CM No.12761/2009 (For Delay)
This is an application filed on behalf of the appellant for condonation of delay in re-filing of the appeal. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the delay of 50 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. The application is disposed of accordingly.
R.S.A. No.118/2009
The appeal is admitted and the following substantial question of law is formulated:-
"Whether the finding in the impugned judgment dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay is a perversity? If so its effect?
This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 21.03.2009 which had endorsed the finding of the Trial Judge whereby the suit of the plaintiff, Amar Singh, had been decreed; the impugned judgment had, however, not heard the appeal on merits; the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act which had accompanied the first appeal had been dismissed; necessary corollary being that the appeal stood dismissed and the judgment of the trial court stood endorsed.
There was a delay of 25 days in preferring the first appeal; the averments made in the application (under Section 5 of the Limitation Act) preferred before the Additional District Judge have been perused. In para 2 it is stated that the impugned judgment had been passed on 18.11.2008; certified copy of the same had been applied on 19.11.2008 which was received on 11.12.2008; thereafter, the file was sent to the Ministry Office of the Department to Dhanbad, Bihar; file reached back Delhi and then to the Ministry Office from where it was sent to Law Ministry for opinion whereupon a counsel had been appointed, the appeal was drafted and then again sent to Dhanbad for vetting and the signatures of the officer which was thereafter returned to the Delhi office; the appeal had been filed without any delay. This is the explanation furnished for the delay of 25 days. It was further stated that the appellants being in Government Office and the main office being at Dhanbad, therefore, the delay had occurred. This application had been accompanied by the affidavit of the Commandant of the appellant No.2. The impugned judgment had considered this application but had found that there is no sufficient explanation for the delay for the intervening period between 22.1.2009 till 16.02.2009. The impugned judgment had noted that during the course of arguments, the appellant had filed a letter dated 28.01.2009 along with the events for the preparation of the application for condonation of delay and the last date of 22.01.2009 had shown that directions had been given to the Liaison Officer of the CISF Unit to file the appeal; appeal had thereafter being filed on 16.02.2009. Even as per the Appellate Court, the non-furnishing of a sufficient explanation was for intervening period of 25 days i.e. between 22.1.2009 to 16.02.2009 was filed.
The details given in para 2 of the body of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act had furnished details; although each and every date has not been mentioned but it had been explained that the main Office of the appellant was in Dhanbad and the file had to move twice to Dhanbad for vetting and signatures of the relevant officer before the appeal could have been filed. This explanation tendered and amount to a 'sufficient cause' for codonation of delay of the aforenoted 25 days.
It may be noted that the first appellate Court is the last Court of facts and law; a valuable right has been lost to the appellant as he could not address his case on merits. The learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the application vehemently placing reliance upon the judgments reported at 118 (2005) DLT 286 General Manager Northern Railway vs. Vishva Nath Nangia; as also reported in 61 (1996) DLT 99 Delhi Development Authority vs. Ramesh Kumar. In the second case, there was a delay of 182 days in filing the appeal. Facts of each case are distinct and on the factual matrix of its own. The learned counsel for the respondent per contra has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.1262/2008 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 131 of 2006) State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Ahmed Jaan delivered on 12.08.2008 wherein the following observations with regard to condonation of delay by the every party who in that case was also a Government body had been noted, relevant extracts reads as under:-
The expression "sufficient cause" should, therefore, be considered with pragmatism in justice-oriented approach rather than the technical detection of sufficient cause for explaining every day's delay. The factors which are peculiar to and characteristic of the functioning of the governmental conditions would be cognizant to and requires adoption of pragmatic approach in justice-oriented process. The court should decide the matters on merits unless the case is hopelessly without merit. No separate standards to determine the cause laid by the State vis-a-vis private litigant could be laid to prove strict standards of sufficient cause. The Government at appropriate level should constitute legal cells to examine the cases whether any legal principles are involved for decision by the courts or whether cases require adjustment and should authorise the officers to take a decision or give appropriate permission for settlement. In the event of decision to file appeal needed prompt action should be pursued by the officer responsible to file the appeal and he should be made personally responsible for lapses, if any. Equally, the State cannot be put on the same footing as an individual. The individual would always be quick in taking the decision whether he would pursue the remedy by way of an appeal or application since he is a person legally injured while State is an impersonal machinery working through its officers or servants.
"Sufficient cause" having been explained, the impugned order is set aside; the matter be considered on merits. Matter is accordingly remanded back to the concerned Court in order to consider the controversy between the parties on its merits. The parties are directed to appear before the District & Sessions Judge on 05.07.2011 at 10.30 who shall assign the case to the concerned first Appellate Court to be heard on its merits.
Substantial question of law is answered accordingly. Appeal disposed off.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
MAY 20, 2011
ns
