Ravi Prakash Bansal And Another ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 3994 UK

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

      Delay Condonation Application No. 1 of 2022
                          In
            Criminal Appeal No. 491 of 2022

Ravi Prakash Bansal and another                       ...Appellants

                               Versus

State of Uttarakhand and others                      ..Respondents

Present:-
            Mr. Aditya Singh, Advocate for the appellants
            Mr. V.S. Rathore, A.G.A. for the State.

                                  JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

Instant criminal appeal is proposed to be filed

against the judgment and order dated 24.07.2015, passed in

Misc. Case No. 10 of 2014, Ravi Prakash Bansal and another

Vs. Dr. Sanjeev Kumar Bansal and another, by the court of

Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rudrapur, District Udham

Singh Nagar ("the case"). It is delayed. A delay condonation

application has been filed.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

the record.

3. According to the delay condonation application,

the appellants were given assurance by their counsel

representing them in the court below that the appeal would

be filed before the High Court. Accordingly, the appellants

handed over the documents to their counsel and recently

when the appellant no.1 enquired the status of the appeal, it

was revealed to him that the appeal could not be filed.

Hence, the delay.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit

that, in fact, the appellants were under the impression that

the appeal could be filed by their counsel, who had assured

them to file the appeal and had also taken documents.

Therefore, delay occurred.

5. While deciding the delay condonation application,

it is a case, in which, the facts need to be examined.

6. The appellants filed Original Suit No. 84 of 2013,

Ravi Prakash Bansal and another Vs. Adarsh Nagar Land

Settlement Co-operative Society and two others ("the Original

Suit") seeking permanent injunction. In the Original Suit, it

has been the case of the appellants that the private

respondents did file forged documents. Therefore, an

application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 ("the Code") was filed by the appellants,

which is basis of the case. The appellants wanted that a

complaint may be filed against the private respondents for

forging the documents and filing them in the Original Suit.

By the order dated 24.07.2015 passed in the case, the Court

below observed that the civil court in the Original Suit did

not form any opinion that the documents were forged. The

Original Suit was then pending. Accordingly, the court below

held that since the Original Suit was then pending and the

civil court did not form any opinion with regard to the

genuineness or otherwise of the documents, the proceedings

under Section 340 of the Code could not have been initiated.

Accordingly, the application under Section 340 of the Code

filed by the appellants was dismissed on 24.07.2015.

7. Today, learned counsel for the appellants gives a

statement that Original Suit has been decided and now

second appeal is pending.

8. It has been the case of the appellants that the

forged documents were filed in the Original Suit. The

Original Suit was then pending. It is not a case of the

appellants that they moved any application for taking action

against the private respondents for forging documents and

filing them in the court. The Original Suit was decided. As

informed today, the first appeal has also been decided and

the second appeal is pending before this Court. But since

2015, the appellants could not challenge the impugned order

dated 24.07.2015 and the ground taken is that the

appellants were under the impression that their counsel

could have filed the appeal.

9. The delay should generally be condoned. The

Court should definitely adopt a practical approach in such

matters. Day-to-day explanation is never expected of. But

then, this liberal approach should not be construed to the

extent that the law of limitation should be made redundant.

The appellants were pursuing the Original Suit. They filed

first appeal and, as stated, it is told to the Court that second

appeal is pending. In view of it, the explanation given for

filing the instant appeal with delay is not at all satisfactory.

In fact, it appears to be a pretext to challenge the order.

There is no reason for delay. Accordingly, the delay

condonation application deserves to be dismissed.

10. The delay condonation application is dismissed.

Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 13.12.2022 Jitendra