Single judge rejected the applicant's application to condone a 3456-day delay in filing a regular first appeal against an acquisition award, finding the applicant made false averments to mislead the Court before dismissing the appeal.
Application for condonation of delay of 3456 days rejected; appeal dismissed as time-barred.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
C.M. Nos.6650-51-CI of 2011 in/and RFA No.2858 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 3.11.2011
Manohar Lal
-----Appellant
Vs.
State of Haryana
-----Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
Present:Mr. S.M. Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.
RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.
This is landowner’s appeal challenging the impugned award of the reference Court on the ground that market value of the acquired land in question has been determined at a lower rate.
There is delay of 3456 days in filing and 59 days in refiling this appeal. Application for condoning the aforesaid delay has also been filed along with this appeal. The relevant averments made in the application for condoning the said delay in filing this appeal reads thus:-
2
RFA No.2858 of 2011
The objection raised by the Registry was removed and the case was re-filed on 6.7.2005. The registry while passing the said filed appeal raised objection on 16.7.2005 as under:-
i) No. of delay days is not correct in both C.Ms.
ii) Previous power of attorney should be filed. iii) No objection may be obtained.
3
RFA No.2858 of 2011
call of the undersigned, due to unavoidable reasons, i.e. old age and non-availability of the funds. Despite various reminders to the appellant, he ultimately sought the opinion as to what could be the solution in the given circumstances. Therefore, it is decided to file the fresh appeal itself by making an application for condonation of delay of total days right from the days when it was firstly instituted.
That since various RFAs bearing No.630 of 2001, 631 to 645 and 2205 to 2209 of 2001, 217 to 219 of 2002 and 809 of 2002 are still pending against the impugned award. The delay occurred in the present is not intentional rather it is bonafide on account of unavoidable reasons and due to lack of information between the earlier counsel and the appellant. The appellant is a poor man and it is difficult for him to make good of his daily livelihood. If the delay is condoned, justice would be rendered to the appellant. A full set of the earlier draft of appeal in original is being filed before this Hon’ble Court.
It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the application may kindly be accepted and condonation of delay of 3456 days may kindly be condoned in the interest of justice.”
A perusal of the aforesaid averments would show that according to the appellant, he had engaged Shri R.K. Arora, Advocate in the first instance to file this appeal and the instant appeal was filed on 6.5.2002 through him which was returned by
4
RFA No.2858 of 2011
the registry after raising some objections. However, the same was not refiled and thereafter, the brief was taken from him and the present counsel representing the appellant was engaged, who refiled the appeal on 25.2.2005 but the registry again raised certain objections and thereafter, the appeal could be refiled only on 7.9.2010.
However, the aforesaid averments made by the appellant are totally false and in fact misleading. A perusal of the opening sheet of the original paper book of the appeal filed by Shri R.K. Arora, Advocate (which is available on file at page 43) clearly depicts that the said appeal was prepared and filed by Shri R.K. Arora, Shri Surinder Mohan Sharma (the counsel representing the appellant presently) and Shri B.R. Rana, Advocates. Not only this, the memo of parties of the original paper book, at page No.46, if seen by naked eyes, clearly depicts that an effort has been made to remove the names and signatures of S/Sh. Surinder Mohan Sharma and B.R. Rana, Advocates from the memo of parties by applying white fluid. Thus, the appellant has approached this Court by making a false averments and has also tried to mislead the Court, therefore, he is not entitled to any relief, much less of condoning such a huge delay.
Thus, prayer for condoning the delay of 3456 days in filing this appeal is rejected.
RFA No.2858 of 2011
5
Since the prayer for condonation of delay has not been accepted, the appeal being time barred is also dismissed. In view of dismissal of application for condonation of delay as well as the appeal, no other application survives.
November 03, 2011 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) ak JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay of 3456 days in filing the appeal can be condoned in view of the appellant’s false averments regarding quantum of delay and failure to correct the memo of parties in earlier filings?
Whether the appeal, being time-barred due to the rejection of the condonation of delay application, should be allowed or dismissed?
Manohar Lal
State of Haryana
Rakesh Kumar Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
