Civil Revision challenging order condoning delay in filing an appeal by a government trust. Court held delay condoned due to official negligence, though false affidavit requires subsequent enforcement action.
Civil Revision No. 252 of 2012 dismissed; delay in appeal to be condoned.
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. 252 of 2012 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 252 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision: 22.5.2012
Gurdev Singh Sehmby
.. Petitioner
v.
The Ludhiana Improvement Trust
.. Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. Malkeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Alok Jain, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab and Mr. Sandeep Khunger, Advocate for the respondent.
Rajesh Bindal J.
“4. xx xx xx
It is a case in which a civil suit was filed by the petitioner for mandatory injunction directing the Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana to make regular allotment of residential plot measuring 500 sq. yards in 475 Acre Scheme in the name of the petitioner out of Government's discretionary quota at reserve price,
Civil Revision No. 252 of 2012 [2]
prevailing at the time of approval. The alleged approval is dated 6.10.1983. The suit was filed on 22.4.2002.
As is evident from the interim order passed by the learned trial court on July 20,2002, memo of appearance was filed on behalf of Ludhiana Improvement Trust. However, thereafter, none appeared for it and it was proceeded against ex parte. Learned court below decided the suit in favour of the petitioner on 18.12.2008 without even considering issue of limitation. Ludhiana Improvement Trust filed appeal before the lower appellate court on 17.7.2009 along with application for condonation of delay claiming that they were not aware about the pendency of the suit and ex parte decree. They came to know only when notice of the execution was received. The application for condonation of delay having been accepted, the petitioner/plaintiff is before this court.”
After the notice in the suit was issued, on 20.7.2002, it is noticed by the court that memo of appearance on behalf of the defendant has been filed. The case was adjourned to 27.8.2002 for filing of the written statement and power of attorney. Though the name of the Advocate is not mentioned in the order dated 20.7.2002, however, at page 55 of the record of the court below, memo of appearance is available on record which has apparently been filed by Shri S. S. Gill, Advocate, as it does not contain his name but his signatures only.
Civil Revision No. 252 of 2012 [3]
evidence of the plaintiff was recorded. On 14.2.2003, the court recorded that an application for setting aside of ex-parte proceedings was filed. After getting reply to the application from the plaintiff, issues were framed on that application on 10.4.2003. For number of dates of hearing, no evidence was led in support of the application.
“Case called several times. It is 3.28 P.M. None has appeared on behalf of the applicants/defendants. So the application for setting aside the exparte order dated 27.8.2002 stands dismissed in default. For exparte evidence of the plaintiff, now to come up on 25.2.2005.”
Civil Revision No. 252 of 2012 [4]
the Trust any further. The Trust was represented by Shri Rajiv Kaushal, Advocate in the aforesaid proceedings. 10. Appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 18.12.2008 was filed before the District Judge on 16.7.2009. There is objection noticed by the Clerk of Court mentioning that the appeal is beyond limitation. An application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal was also filed without mentioning the number of days, condonation of which was sought. The application is supported by an affidavit of Mr. G. S. Sodhi, Executive Officer of Ludhiana Improvement Trust dated 14.7.2009 attested on 15.7.2009.
Civil Revision No. 252 of 2012 [5]
court shows that the same has been signed by some officer/official on behalf of the Trust, without mentioning his name. The application is dated 14.12.2002. It has been signed by Shri S. S. Gill, Advocate. Subsequent thereto, when the application for restoration of the application for setting aside of exparte order was filed in the court on 11.3.2006 under the signatures of Mr. Rajiv Kaushal, Advocate, the same was accompanied by an affidavit of Mr. D. C. Garg, Executive Officer, Ludhiana Improvement Trust. There is power of attorney executed in favour of Mr. S. S. Gill, Advocate, at page 53 of the record. It only contains signatures of some officer/official without mentioning his name.
Civil Revision No. 252 of 2012 [6]
Civil Revision No. 252 of 2012 [7]
complexion changes where the government makes out a case where public interest was shown to have suffered owing to acts of fraud or bad faith on the part of its officers or agents. It constitutes sufficient cause for the purpose of condonation of delay. Relevant paragraphs 15 and 16 are extracted below:
“15. In litigations to which government is a party there is yet another aspect which, perhaps, cannot be ignored. If appeals brought by government are lost for such defaults, no person is individually affected; but what, in the ultimate analysis, suffers is public interest. The decisions of government are collective and institutional decisions and do not share the characteristics of decisions of private individuals.
“25. It is true when the State and its instrumentalities are the applicants seeking condonation of delay they may be entitled to certain amount of latitude but the law of limitation is same for citizen and for Governmental authorities. Limitation Act does not provide for a different period to the government in filing appeals or applications as such. It would be a different matter where the Government makes out a case where public interest was shown to have suffered owing to acts of fraud or collusion on the part of its officers or agents and where the officers were clearly at cross purposes with it. In a given case if any such facts are pleaded or proved they cannot be
Civil Revision No. 252 of 2012 [8]
excluded from consideration and those factors may go into the judicial verdict. In the present case, no such facts are pleaded and proved though a feeble attempt by the learned counsel for the respondent was made to suggest collusion and fraud but without any basis. We cannot entertain the submission made across the Bar without there being any proper foundation in the pleadings.”
“19. On perusal of the explanation offered it is clear that the officials who were dealing with the matter have either deliberately or without understanding the implications dealt with the matter in a very casual and lethargic manner. It is a matter of concern that in very serious matters action is not taken as required under law and the appeals/petitions are filed after a long lapse of time. It is a common grievance that it is so done to protect unscrupulous litigants at the cost of public interest or public exchequer. This stand is more noticeable where vast tracts of lands or large sums of revenue are involved.
Civil Revision No. 252 of 2012 [9]
x xx xx
Civil Revision No. 252 of 2012 [10]
( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge
22.5.2012 mk
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay in filing an appeal by a government instrumentality deserves condonation where negligence or apparent connivance led to the unrepresented trial and subsequent decree.
Whether a false affidavit filed to support an application for condonation of delay by a public authority is an automatic bar to condoning such delay.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Pundlik Jalam Patil (D) by Lrs. v. Exe. Eng. Jalgaon Medium Project and anotherReferred¶36
Pundlik Jalam Patil (D) by Lrs. v. Exe. Eng. Jalgaon Medium Project and another, 2008(4) RCR (Civil) 885
G. Ramegowda, Major and others v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, BangaloreFollowed¶40
G. Ramegowda, Major and others v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore, (1988) 2 SCC 142 · Who else cites this
State of Karnataka v. Y. Moideen Kunhi (Dead) by LRS. and othersFollowed¶49
State of Karnataka v. Y. Moideen Kunhi (Dead) by LRS. and others, (2009) 13 SCC 192 · Who else cites this
Gurdev Singh Sehmby
The Ludhiana Improvement Trust
Rajesh Bindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
