This revision petition challenged an order allowing a 15-day delay in filing an appeal by the Union of India. The high court held that filing delays involving the State are understandable due to internal file transmission and dismissed the revision.
Revision petition dismissed; the impugned order allowing the delay was upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Civil Revision No. 6859 of 2011
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 6859 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 9th, 2011
Lachhwant Singh .... Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not?
3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present Mr. Sarjit Singh, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Amit, Advocate, for the petitioner.
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.
Vide judgment and decree dated 1.12.2010 (Annexure P1), the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala decreed the suit of Lachhwant Singh, petitioner-plaintiff against Union of India and others. As Union of India and others got late in filing the appeal, they had filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal along with the grounds of appeal. The said application has been allowed by learned Additional District Judge, Patiala vide order dated 5.9.2011 (Annexure P2), which is challenged by Lachhwant Singh, plaintiff by way of this revision petition under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Learned Appellate Court has rejected the submission of
Civil Revision No. 6859 of 2011 2
learned counsel for the petitioner that the applicants were obliged to explain the delay of each and every day in filing the appeal. Taking into account that the appellant is not an individual but Union of India, which works through its officials and the file for taking decision of filing the appeal passes through various channels resulting in delay and the fact that the delay is merely of 15 days, the Appellant Court found the delay to be explained and resultantly the application for condonation of delay has been allowed.
I have heard Mr. Sarjit Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Amit, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record carefully.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no difference can be made between a private individual and the State before the law. According to him, the State should also explain the delay in the manner, it is required to be explained by an individual. He has submitted that learned appellate court has lightly accepted the plea of Union of India and has not been right in accepting the application and condoning the delay.
I fail to find any substance in the submission of learned senior counsel for the petitioner. The delay, in the first place, is for a period of 15 days only. The suit had been decided by a court at Patiala and the decision had to be taken for filing the appeal by the Union of India having its offices at New Delhi. The file passes through various channels for finally deciding about the filing of the appeal. Learned appellate court has noticed various decisions of Honble High Courts and Honble Supreme Court of India where delay for a larger period had been
3
Civil Revision No. 6859 of 2011
condoned in appeals brought by the State or the Union of India.
In these circumstances, I find no substance in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality. The revision petition is, consequently, dismissed.
(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE
November 9th, 2011 som
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a civil revision petition under Article 227 can quash an order allowing an application for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by the Union of India.
Whether the explanation accepted by the appellate court for the 15-day delay in filing an appeal by the Union of India is legally sustainable.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Lachhwant Singh
Union of India
Vijsingh Malik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
