Delhi High Court
Balwan Singh And Another vs Union Of India And Others on 10 April, 2024
Author: C.Hari Shankar
Bench: C. Hari Shankar
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RSA 43/2023
BALWAN SINGH AND ANOTHER ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. H.P. Chakravorty and Mr.
A.K. Bhakta, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Subhash Tanwar, CGSC
with Mr. Gokul Sharma, GP, Mr. Ashish
Chaudhary and Mr. Sandeep Mishra, Advs.
for R-1
Mr. Angant Singh, Adv. for R-3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
% 10.04.2024
CM APPL.21435.2024 (for condonation of delay of 3121 days in
refilling)
1. This appeal has been preferred with a delay of 3121 days.
2. The final judgment and order under challenge in this second
appeal was passed by the learned First Appellate Court on 16 January
2014 in Regular Civil Appeal 19/2013 and 5 March 2014 in Review
Application 20/2014.
3. This appeal was initially filed on 31 May 2014.
The appeal was returned with defects, and was refiled for the Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:AJIT KUMAR RSA 43/2023 By:CHANDRASHEKHAR
Signing Signing Date:12.04.2024
Date:12.04.2024 13:20 13:18
first time on 26 April 2018, i.e. after four years. The appeal again
returned with defects and refiled almost five years after that on 16
February 2023.
5. Delay in refiling is ordinarily treated with leniency by this
Court. That, however, does not mean that the Court can condone ten
years delay in refiling without due course.
6. In the present application, the only ground that is taken is that
certain documents were required to be retyped. It is stated that after
the matter was returned with objections in the first instance, it was
seen that there were about 70 to 80 pages, which had to be typed.
Apparently, it took four years to type the said 70 to 80 pages.
7. Thereafter, it is stated that it was found that further objections
were raised regarding requirement of filing fair typed copy of
annexures and English translation of certain vernacular documents.
This, again, appears to have taken five more years.
8. Resort to the legal process requires at least a bare minimum of
due diligence on the part of the person approaching the Court. Four
years on one occasion and five years in the next occasion, can hardly
be sought to be explained away on the ground that certain documents
were required to be typed or translated.
9. No ground exists to condone the delay of 3121 days in refiling
the present appeal.
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:AJIT KUMAR RSA 43/2023 By:CHANDRASHEKHAR
Signing Signing Date:12.04.2024
Date:12.04.2024 13:20 13:18
11. The appeal is also dismissed on the ground of delay in refiling.
CM APPL. 8964/2023 (Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC), CM APPL.
8965/2023 (for condonation of delay of 45 days in filing) and CM
APPL. 21435/2024 (for condonation of delay of 3121 days in re-
filing)
12. These applications do not survive for consideration and stand
disposed of.
C.HARI SHANKAR, J
APRIL 10, 2024
rb
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:AJIT KUMAR RSA 43/2023 By:CHANDRASHEKHAR
Signing Signing Date:12.04.2024
Date:12.04.2024 13:20 13:18
