Sangeeta & Ors. vs Delhi Development Authority & ...
2014 Latest Caselaw 5827 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+              C.M.(M) No.54/2014 and C.M. Nos.697-700/2014

%                                                       14th November, 2014

SANGEETA & ORS.                                           ..... Petitioners
                          Through:       Mr. Vinay Gupta, Advocate with Mr.
                                         Samson Honey, Advocate and Mr. R.
                                         Ravi, Advocate.

                          Versus

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.            ..... Respondents

Through: S.I. Amarjeet Singh, P.S. Geeta Colony in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,

the petitioners challenge the impugned order dated 17.9.2013 by which the

first appellate court refused to condone the delay of 37 days in filing the

appeal.

2. In my opinion, delay of 37 days is hardly such a delay which

should not have been condoned because once there is delay, some amount of

negligence is implicit, however, that itself is not a good ground to deny

condonation of delay because it is settled law in view of the judgment of the

Supreme Court in the case of N.Balakrishnan Vs. M.Krishnamurthy AIR

1998 SC 3222 that a person takes no benefit by deliberately delaying filing

of an appeal.

3. There are two types of delays. First type of delays are those

where delays are of a few weeks and in second type of cases delays are those

of many months and even years. In the former types of cases, unless grave

and serious prejudice is caused by the person who has filed the appeal with

delay to the respondent or the appellant is guilty of malafides the delay

should be condoned, I do not think that such delay of just 37 days ought not

to have been condoned in the present case.

4. In view of the above, this petition is allowed. Impugned order

dated 17.9.2013 refusing to condone the delay of only 37 days is set aside.

The first appeal will now be heard and disposed of by the first appellate

court in accordance with law. Parties are left to bear their own costs.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J NOVEMBER 14, 2014 Ne