Dharmender Kumar vs Union Of India
2014 Latest Caselaw 2580 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         FAO No. 468/2012
%
                                                               20th May, 2014

DHARMENDER KUMAR                                   ..... Appellant
               Through:                  Mr.Anshuman Bal, Adv.


                          Versus


UNION OF INDIA                                       ..... Respondent
                          Through:       None


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

CM Nos.7811/2014, 7812/2014 & 7813/2014

      These are applications for restoration of the appeal which was

dismissed in default on 12.12.2013 and for condonation of delay. Appellant

has deposited the costs of Rs.2,000/- with the Delhi High Court Legal

Services Committee and receipt of which shall be placed on record during

the course of the day. Appeal is therefore restored to its original number.


      Applications are disposed of.
FAO 468/2012                                                Page 1 of 3
 FAO 468/2012

1.    This appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal

Act, 1987 impugning the judgment of the Tribunal dated 11.04.2012 by

which the Tribunal has refused to condone the delay of 227 days in filing the

claim petition.


2.    It is not disputed that there is power in the Tribunal to condone the

delay and the issue is whether sufficient cause is shown for condonation of

delay of 227 days.


3.    In my opinion, delay of 227 days is not such a great delay because

ordinarily a period of three years is provided for filing of all types of

residuary suits under the Limitation Act. The claim petition before the

Tribunal is however to be filed within one year. The Supreme Court in the

case of N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy AIR 1998 SC 3222 has

held that once condonation of delay is sought there is bound to be some

negligence but once there is no want of good faith on behalf of the applicant

delay should be condoned.


4.    No doubt in the present case appellant in the application for

condonation of delay has not mentioned the name of the earlier counsel


FAO 468/2012                                               Page 2 of 3
 who has expired and consequently leading to delay in filing the claim

petition, however, such deficiency has been removed by stating the details in

this appeal. It may be noted that the appellant is a permanent resident of

Kanpur and, therefore, could not remain personally in touch with his earlier

counsel who expired, and therefore the delay of 227 days.


5.    In view of the above, this is a fit case where the Tribunal should

entertain the claim petition on merits instead of dismissing the claim petition

on technicalities, more so because sufficient reasons have been given of the

papers being given to the earlier counsel who has died.


6.    In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment of

the Tribunal dated 11.04.2012 is set aside. Delay in filing the claim petition

is condoned. The Railway Claims Tribunal will now decide the matter on

merits in accordance with law.


7.    Let the parties appear before the Railway Claims Tribunal on

31.07.2014 for further proceedings.




MAY20, 2014                                   VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

mm