Mrs. Anandita Lakra & Ors vs Gel Church & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 2214 Jhar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                 S.A. No. 606 of 2017
                               ------

Mrs. Anandita Lakra & Ors. .... .... .... Appellants Versus GEL Church & Ors. .... .... .... Respondents

------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

------

For the Appellants : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent Nos.1, 4 & 5 : Mr. Jai Prakash, Sr. Advocate : Ms. Omiya Anusha, Advocate

------

Order No.06 Dated- 21.06.2023 I.A. No.4768 of 2021 Heard the parties.

This interlocutory application has been filed with a prayer to condone the delay of 260 days in filing this appeal.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants have no personal knowledge of the disposal of judgment and decree and only in the month of November, 2021, they got the knowledge about the disposal of the title appeal and thereafter they contacted their lawyer in Civil Court, Gumla and collected the entire file and hence the same resulted in delay in filing the second appeal. It is further submitted that the delay was neither willful nor deliberate and intentional. It is next submitted the appellants are lay man and did not have knowledge of procedural law. It is lastly submitted that the appellants have very good grounds to agitate in this second appeal and unless the delay of 260 days in filing this second appeal is condoned, the appellants will be highly prejudiced.

Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondents on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for condonation of delay in filing the instant second appeal. Drawing attention of this Court to the order dated 04.01.2017 passed in Title Appeal No. 28 of 2013, it is submitted that on that date as is evident from the order sheet of the learned first appellate court on 04.01.2017 when the impugned judgment was pronounced by the learned first appellate court in Title Appeal No. 28 of 2013 both the parties were present as mentioned in the order sheet; which obviously means that the appellants before this Court were also present in the trial court and thus very much aware about the judgment pronounced on the date of the pronouncement of the judgment, itself. Hence, there is no merit in the contention of the appellants herein that they are ignorant about the judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate court and the same also shows that there is no sufficient cause for condonation of delay.

Considering the settled principle of law that it is always better to have a lis decided on contest rather than ex-parte and considering the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that they were not aware about the legal requirement of filing this second appeal within the stipulated time, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the delay of 260 days in filing this appeal be condoned subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- by the appellants to the respondents through the learned counsel for the respondents appearing in the record within six weeks, 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 second appeal shall stand dismissed being barred by limitation.

It is made clear that in case, if the appellants files the proof of payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- by the appellants to the respondents through the learned counsel for the respondents appearing in the record within six weeks, list this appeal after six weeks, under Order XLI Rule 11 CPC as the last chance.

This interlocutory application stands disposed of accordingly.

Sonu-Gunjan/-                         (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)