Dismissed

Lachhman Dass v. Deputy Director and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Aug 2010CR/4964/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge dismissed a revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. The petitioner challenged an order by an Additional District Judge condoning a delay of 117 days (approx 90 days after limitation period) in filing a civil appeal by respondents, citing procedural formalities as the cause.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed in limine; condonation of delay for respondents affirmed.

Lachhman Dass Vs Deputy Director and Ors. — Execution and Attachment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

C. R. No. 4964 of 2010

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Case No. : C. R. No. 4964 of 2010

¶5

Date of Decision : August 09, 2010

Lachhman Dass

.... Petitioner

Vs.

The Deputy Director, Local Government, Amritsar and others .... Respondents

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL

¶11

¶12

Present : Mr. Harchand Singh Batth, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

¶14

L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :

¶15

Plaintiff Lachhman Dass has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 03.05.2010 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar, thereby condoning delay in filing Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by respondents no.1 and 2 herein.

¶16

Learned trial court, vide order dated 11.01.2008, allowed application for temporary injunction moved by plaintiff/petitioner. Defendants/respondents no.1 and 2 preferred appeal against the said order and moved application Annexure P-2 for condonation of delay in filing the

¶17

C. R. No. 4964 of 2010

¶18

¶19

said appeal. Respondent no.1 is Deputy Director, Local Government, whereas respondent no.2 is Chairman, Improvement Trust, Amritsar. It was alleged that delay occurred on account of procedural formalities.

¶20

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the

¶21

case file.

¶22

It has been mentioned in application Annexure P-2 and consequently, also in impugned order of the lower appellate court that there was delay of 117 days in filing the appeal. However, it appears that the delay was of 90 days approximately after deducting the limitation period of 30 days prescribed for filing the appeal. Impugned order of the trial court was dated 11.01.2008 and the appeal was filed on 23.05.2008. Some days must have been spent in obtaining certified copy of the order of the trial court. Accordingly, the delay was not of 117 days.

¶23

Be that as it may, the delay has been found to be properly explained. The appellate court recorded evidence in support of the application moved by respondents no.1 and 2 for condonation of delay. After considering evidence led by both the parties, the appellate court found sufficient ground to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The discretion exercised by the appellate court cannot be said to be illegal or perverse so as to warrant interference in exercise of jurisdiction of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶24

On the other hand, Courts are liberal in matters of condonation

¶25

C. R. No. 4964 of 2010

¶26

¶27

of delay because a party should not be defeated without adjudication on merits. In the instant case, the delay was not so long and undue as to reject the application for condonation of delay. On the other hand, more latitude is granted to public authorities in the matters of condonation of delay.

¶28

In view of the aforesaid, I find no sufficient ground for interfering with the impugned order of the appellate court thereby condoning delay in filing the appeal by respondents no.1 and 2. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.

¶29

August 09, 2010

¶30

( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE

¶31

monika

Lachhman Dass v. Deputy Director and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lachhman Dass v. Deputy Director and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sawraj Jindal and Anr. Vs Shri Jang Bahadur and Ors.

Manish Kumar Vs Ritika Sharam

Pritam Singh Vs Sawinder Singh and Ors.

Rakesh Passi @ Golda Vs State Bank of India and Ors.

Krishan Kumar Vs Harphool Dass & Ors.

Bhim Singh & Ors. Vs Randhir Singh & Anor.