Punjab-Haryana High Court
Punjab State Civil Supplies Ltd And ... vs Partap Singh Inspector And Another on 1 April, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:043420
CR-909-2022(O&M) 2024:PHHC:043420
-1-
126 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CR-909-2022(O&M)
Date of decision :01.04.2024
Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation
Limited and another ...Petitioner
Vs.
Partap Singh Inspector and another ...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. Naresh Gopal Sharma, Advocate and
Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Pratap Singh Gill, Advocate
for respondent No.1.
None for respondent No.2.
***
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. (Oral)
1. This revision petition has been filed by the plaintiff (Punjab State
Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, a Public Sector Undertaking of the State
Government) to challenge the correctness of the First Appellate Court's order
refusing to condone the delay of 01 year and 11 months in filing the first
appeal.
2. It has been stated that the dealing Assistant, Gourav Sharma was
suspended on 22.02.2017. Hence, he did not forward the certified copy of
judgment and decree to the head office for filing the appeal. It was only when
the head office vide letter dated 07.06.2018 asked the District Office to enquire
about the case, it came to light that the case was dismissed on 13.09.2016.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:043420
CR-909-2022(O&M) 2024:PHHC:043420
Thereafter, the certified copy of the judgment and decree was applied and the
appeal was filed.
3. The First Appellate Court has dismissed the application on the
ground that the explanation furnished for seeking condonation of long delay of
01 year and 11 months is not sufficient.
4. Heard the learned counsel representing the parties at length and
with their able assistance perused the paper-book.
5. In this case, the petitioner filed a suit for recovery of
Rs. 4,81,98,267/- on account of shortage, less excess and loss due to sale of
rejected wheat to the private party at lower rate. The petitioner is a public
sector undertaking. It is managed and run by its employees. The petitioner is
seeking recovery of public money. The First Appellate Court is a last Court for
re-appreciation of facts and evidence, which is an important point. Though, the
application filed by the petitioner is not happily worded, however, this Court is
required to examine its substance. The First Appellate Court has taken a
narrow view on the matter. In such matters, the approach of the Court should
be pragmatic as already noticed, a huge amount of public money is involved.
6. In these circumstances, the appeal is allowed. The delay in filing
the first appeal is condoned while setting aside the impugned order passed by
the First Appellate Court. The first appeal is restored to its original number and
the First Appellate Court is directed to decide the same within a period of 06
months. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the
First Appellate Court on 26.04.2024.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:043420
CR-909-2022(O&M) 2024:PHHC:043420
7. Needless to say that the First Appellate Court will decide the
appeal on merits uninfluenced by the observations made by this Court while
passing the order.
(ANIL KSHETARPAL)
01.04.2024 JUDGE
neeraj Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes No
Whether Reportable : Yes No
3 of 3
