SPA/434/2021
2022 Latest Caselaw 1247 UK

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
               AT NAINITAL

                    SRI JUSTICE S.K. MISHRA, A.C.J.
                                AND
                     SRI JUSTICE R.C. KHULBE, J.

20th APRIL, 2022

SPECIAL APPEAL No. 434 OF 2021

Between:

Managing Director, Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Limited, Dehradun.

...Appellant and

Vipin Kumar and others.

...Respondents

Counsel for the appellant. : Mr. Neeraj Garg, the learned counsel.

Counsel for the respondent no. 1. : Mr. Shashi Kant Shandilya, the learned counsel.

Counsel for the respondent nos. 2 : Mr. Pradeep Joshi, the learned to 4. Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.

Upon hearing the learned Counsel, the Court made the following

JUDGMENT : (per Sri S.K. Mishra, A.C.J.)

The appellant has filed an application for

condonation of delay of 915 days in preferring the

present Special Appeal against the judgment dated

09.05.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge. The

Office has pointed out that there is a delay of 280 days.

However, such an Office Note is incorrect in view of the fact that the limitation began on 09.05.2019 and expired

on 08.06.2019. The Stamp Reporter has noted that in

view of the order dated 10.01.2022, passed by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C)

No. 3 of 2020, the period from 15.03.2020 to

20.12.2021 has to be excluded, and delay from

08.06.2019 to 14.03.2020 is of 280 days. This report is

incorrect as the limitation expired on 08.06.2019, and

the subsequent order, in view of the COVID-19

pandemic, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Suo

Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, will not revive

the limitation, which has already expired. So there is a

delay of 915 days in preferring the present Special

Appeal.

2. We have carefully heard Mr. Neeraj Garg, the

learned counsel for the appellant and the learned

counsel for the respondents, as well as perused the

records. We are of the opinion that on 09.05.2019, the

appellant was represented by a learned counsel, and in

his presence the order was passed by the learned Single

Judge. So, there is a sufficient communication of the

said order.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits

that, after receipt of the notice of contempt, they have

filed a review application, in which the delay was

condoned by the learned Single Judge and, therefore,

the delay in preferring the present Special Appeal should

also be condoned.

4. The law is well settled that whenever sufficient

cause is shown by a litigant indicating the reasons for

delayed filing of any Petition or Appeal, the delay shall

be condoned, and not otherwise.

5. In this case, no sufficient reasons have been

shown to condone the delay. Hence, we are of the

opinion that there are no plausible reasons to condone

the delay. Hence, the application for condonation of

delay is, hereby, dismissed.

6. Since the present Special Appeal is filed with a

delay of 915 days, the same is not maintainable as it is

barred by limitation. Accordingly, the Special Appeal is,

hereby, dismissed.

7. In sequel thereto, all pending applications also

stand disposed of.

8. Urgent copy of this order be supplied to the

learned counsel for the parties, as per Rules.

________________ S.K. MISHRA, A.C.J.

_____________ R.C. KHULBE, J.

Dt: 20th April, 2022 Rahul