Delhi High Court
Vaishali Sood vs Jamia Millia Islamia & Ors on 19 August, 2013
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 19th August, 2013
+ RFA 387/2012
VAISHALI SOOD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Yadav, Adv. for
Mr. Rakesh Mahajan, Adv.
Versus
JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rohit Gandhi, Adv. for R-1&2.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
CM No.15738/2012 (for condonation of 8 days delay in filing) & CM
No.15739/2012 (for condonation of 2223 days delay in re-filing the
appeal).
1. None appears for the respondents though reply to the application for
condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal has been filed.
2. The counsel for the appellant states that his rejoinder to the said reply
is ready and the matter be adjourned for filing thereof.
3. However the circumstances do not warrant adjournment.
4. The appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree of dismissal
of a suit filed by the appellant for recovery of damages from the respondent
University and its administrative staff for the reason of not allowing the
appellant to appear in the examination for the reason of not fulfilling the
minimum attendance criteria and computation of which attendance was
averred to be erroneous.
5. The learned Additional District Judge has dismissed the suit as barred
by time.
6. The reason given for the delay of eight days in filing the appeal is of
the appellant suffering from depression. The reason given for the delay of
2223 days in re-filing the appeal is that after the appeal was returned with
objections, the same was misplaced by the clerk of the counsel and on
account of the said clerk noting a wrong filing number, the appeal could not
be got traced in the Registry.
7. The delay in re-filing is of unusually long time. The appeal is stated
to have been filed on 21.03.2006, thereafter on 15.05.2006, 10.07.2006 and
lastly on 30.10.2006, when each time, it was returned under objections.
However a perusal of the Court file shows the same to have been filed many
more times and it appears that there was no serious effort in removing the
objections and the appeal was being repeatedly re-filed just for the sake of
keeping the same alive.
8. After the appeal was re-filed last on 30.10.2006, there are absolutely
no particulars to show the bona fides of the appellant. Though the entire
blame is sought to be put on the clerk of the counsel but neither the name of
the said clerk is mentioned nor any affidavit of the said clerk or of the
advocate engaged by the appellant is filed. Ultimately a letter dated
07.01.2008 is stated to have been sent by the Registry to the counsel for the
appellant informing that the appeal was lying under objection
9. Though it is stated that the appeal was taken back thereafter but it is
stated that the same was put in the file of decided matters in the office of the
advocate and got lost. It is however not disclosed as to when it was taken
back and along with file of which matter it was kept. The other averments
also in the application of the clerk having left the services, a new clerk
having been engaged who could not find the file, are all vague.
10. There is no explanation also as to what enquiries the appellant made
from the advocate after having engaged the advocate for filing the appeal.
11. It is thus apparent that all the averments made in the application for
condonation of delay of 2223 days delay in re-filing the appeal are false and
the blame is put on unnamed persons who are not before this Court.
12. The counsel for the respondents No.1&2 who has since appeared also
states that any filing beyond 30 days as per the Rules is a fresh filing and the
application seeking condonation of long delay of 2223 days by purporting
the same to be in re-filing is misconceived inasmuch as the delay is in filing
the appeal and the parameters for condonation whereof are different from the
parameters for condonation of delay in re-filing.
13. There is merit in the said contention also.
14. To obviate any technicalities even though the rejoinder which the
counsel for the appellant earlier stated is ready, in fact is not complete, is
taken on record to peruse whether anything new or substantive has been
stated therein.
15. I have perused the said rejoinder. I do not find the lacunas aforesaid
in the application to have been made up therein either.
16. Considering the entirety of the facts, I do not find this to be a fit case
for condonation of delay.
17. Accordingly, the applications are dismissed.
RFA 387/2012
18. Resultantly, the appeal is also dismissed.
No costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
AUGUST 19, 2013
'gsr'..
