Jharkhand High Court
Saudagar Modi vs Niranjan Singh & Ors on 21 February, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S.A. No. 53 of 2021
------
Saudagar Modi .... .... .... Appellant
Versus
Niranjan Singh & Ors. .... .... .... Respondents
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Kundan Kr. Ambastha, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Prabhash Ch. Sinha, Advocate
------
Order No.04 Dated- 21.02.2023
I.A. No.5475 of 2021
This interlocutory application has been filed with a prayer to
condone the delay of 533 days in preferring this appeal.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the
appellant is an old man aged about 91 years suffering from severe
ailments and bed ridden since October, 2018 and was advised bed rest. In
this respect, the learned counsel for the appellant draws the attention of
this Court to annexure-1 series which were the OPD Slips of Community
Health Centre, Gawan. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the
appellant that because of serious illness, the appellant could not contact
his counsel for filing this appeal. It is next submitted that though the
appellant obtained the certified copy of the judgment and decree on
10.03.2021 the same was made available to the appellant on 18.03.2021 and
after that because of Covid-19 Pandemic, there was frequent lockdown,
hence because of such impediment, the appellant could not file this appeal
within time, hence the delay. It is further submitted that the appellant has
very good ground to agitate in this appeal and the delay caused was
neither intentional nor deliberate and unless the delay of 533 days in filing
this instant appeal is condoned, the appellant will be highly prejudiced.
The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand
vehemently opposes the prayer for condonation of the long delay in filing
this appeal and submits that the respondent has obtained information
under Right to Information Act to the effect that the registration number
and date of the OPD slips produced by the appellant has not been entered
in the register of the Community Health Centre, Gawan, hence great
doubt is created regarding the genuineness of the OPD Slips produced by
the appellants. Hence, this petition for condonation of delay in filing this
appeal be dismissed being barred by limitation.
Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going
through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is
not the case of the appellant that OPD slips are issued after entering the
same in the concerned register. The genuineness of the entries made in the
OPD Slips is not in dispute. No fault can be found with the appellant; if
the doctor who has signed the OPD Slip did not get it entered in the
concerned register but still issued that the OPD slip to the appellant
without entering the same in the concerned register of the Community
Health Centre, Gawan.
Considering the aforesaid facts, this court is inclined to condone the
delay in filing this appeal subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- by the
appellant to the respondents through the counsel appearing in record for
the respondents within six weeks from the date of this order; failing which
this conditional order shall not be given effect to and this interlocutory
application shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Bench
and consequently this appeal shall also stand dismissed being barred by
limitation.
In case, the appellant files the proof of payment of costs of
Rs.10,000/- by the appellant to the respondents through the counsel
appearing in record for the respondent within six weeks, list this appeal
after eight weeks under the heading Order XLI Rule 11 C.P.C. as the last
chance.
This interlocutory application stands disposed of accordingly.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
S.A. No. 53 of 2021
Notice issued to the respondent no.6 in the matter of limitation has
been received with the report that the respondent no.6 has died since long
but no prayer for substitution has been filed as yet.
Hence, this appeal abates against the respondent no.6.
Sonu-Gunjan/- (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
