Delhi High Court
Devender Kumar vs Pushpa Rani & Ors on 20 September, 2017
$~7.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAT.APP.(F.C.) 43/2017
DEVENDER KUMAR ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Anshu Priyanka, Advocate with
Mr. Utkarsh, Advocate
versus
PUSHPA RANI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. (appearance not given), Advocate
with respondent No.1 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
ORDER
% 20.09.2017
1. Pursuant to the order dated 01.09.2017, SI Ram Lal Borghare, Pairavi
Officer, Legal Cell, West District, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi, appears and
hands over a letter dated 19.09.2017, addressed by the Deputy
Commissioner of Police, West District, Delhi, stating inter alia that the
appellant herein, who was working as a Constable in Delhi Police, was
dismissed from service on 18.06.2013. An appeal filed by the appellant
against his dismissal order was rejected by the Appellate Authority on
23.07.2015. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed a petition
before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which is pending adjudication. It
is thus stated that the appellant is not drawing any salary from the
Department for being attached, in terms of the last order passed in this
appeal. A copy of the letter dated 19.09.2017 issued by the DCP, West
District alongwith the relevant enclosures handed over by SI Ram Lal
Borghare, is taken on record. The presence of SI Ram Lal Borghare is
dispensed with.
2. On the last date of hearing, the appellant was directed to remain
present. Despite the said order, he is absent. Counsel for the appellant seeks
to explain the appellant's absence by submitting that he is indisposed and
confined to bed. She is, however, unable to produce any medical certificate
to substantiate the said submission. We are compelled to assume that the
appellant has deliberately stayed away from the court today.
CM APPL. 9801/2017 (for condonation of delay of 18 days in re-filing
the appeal)
1. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. The
delay of 18 days in re-filing the accompanying appeal is condoned.
2. The application is disposed of.
CM APPL. 9799/2017 (for condonation of delay of 95 days in filing the
appeal) and MAT.APP.(F.C.) 43/2017
1. Despite opportunities granted to the respondents to file a reply to the
application, no reply has been filed. We therefore proceed to pass an order
on the application, on the basis of arguments advanced by learned counsel
for the appellant.
2. The present application has been filed by the appellant praying inter
alia for condonation of delay of 95 days in filing the accompanying appeal.
The only explanation offered in the application for the delay in filing the
appeal is that the appellant has been suffering from chronic liver damage.
Counsel for the appellant states that the appellant had fallen seriously ill
between March, 2016 and July, 2016. But that period is of no consequence,
inasmuch as the impugned judgment disposing of a petition filed by the
respondent under Section 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance
Act for claiming maintenance for herself and the daughter of the parties,
from 01.01.1996, by quantifying amounts that the appellant has been
directed to pay to his wife and daughter from the year 1999 onwards, was
pronounced on 28.09.2016. As per the records, the present appeal came to
be filed only on 01.02.2017.
3. It has been averred in para 4 of the application that the appellant was
unwell and had been visiting the doctor in September, October, November
and December, 2016. To substantiate the said submission, a copy of the
doctors' prescription has been enclosed with the application. A perusal of
the said documents reveals that they are only prescriptions issued by the
doctor on 2.3.2016, 4.7.2016 and updated till 17.11.2016, indicating the
names of medicines prescribed but there is nothing stated therein to indicate
the ailment from which the appellant was suffering or the line of treatment
recommended, which as per learned counsel, kept him confined to bed from
March, 2016, till the end of January, 2017.
4. In fact, there is no explanation whatsoever in the present application
to explain the reason for not filing the appeal at least in the month of
January, 2017, if not earlier. In the absence of any explanation for non-filing
of the appeal in the month of January, 2017, the appellant's bald statement
that he was confined to bed in all this duration, can be of no help. The
doctor's certificate indicating the kind of illness that the appellant was
suffering from, has also not been filed. The prescription of the doctor as
filed, is not of any assistance in so far as the delay after 17.11.2016, is
concerned. In fact the entire averments made in the application are vague
and ambiguous and bereft of material particulars.
5. In such circumstances, we have no option but to conclude that no just
or sufficient cause has been shown by the appellant for seeking condonation
of delay of 95 days in filing the accompanying appeal. As a result, the
present application is dismissed. Consequently, the accompanying appeal
also stands dismissed.
HIMA KOHLI, J
DEEPA SHARMA, J
SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
rkb/ap
