The High Court dismissed an application for condonation of a nearly eight-year delay in filing a regular second appeal, finding the applicant's lack of inquiry constituted negligence and no sufficient cause existed.
Application for condonation of delay denied; Main appeal dismissed as barred by time.
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 & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.M. No. 10259-CII of 2011 & R.S.A. No. 3627 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: 8.2.2012.
Dharam Pal Chauhan
--Appellant
Versus
Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board & another
--Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.
Present:Mr. S.K. Rana, Advocate for the appellant.
TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.J
C.M. No. 10259-CII of 2011
This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 3097 days in filing the present appeal.
In brief, the plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendants, Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') to step up the pay of the plaintiff-appellant at par with that of defendants no.3 and 4 w.e.f. 9.8.1979 with all consequential benefits. The suit of the plaintiff-appellant was decreed with costs and a decree for mandatory injunction directing the defendant-Board to step up his pay at par with defendants no.3 & 4 w.e.f. 9.8.1979 with all consequential benefits along with interest @ 12% per annum, was passed. The Board preferred a civil appeal and vide judgement dated 25.2.2003 the Additional District Judge, Kaithal accepted the appeal thereby setting aside the judgement and decree of the Trial Court. Resultantly, the suit of the plaintiff-appellant was dismissed.
R.S.A. No. 3627 of 2011(O&M) -2-
It is against the impugned order and judgement dated 25.2.2003 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kaithal that the instant Regular Second Appeal has been preferred before this Court. The applicant seeks condonation of delay of 3097 days in filing the appeal. In para 2 of the application, it has been asserted that the relevant papers and documents have been provided to Sh. Raman B. Garg, Advocate, who had filed the appeal in time vide Diary No.16524. It is further asserted that the appellant had been making inquiries regarding the status of the appeal but was also informed that the appeal had since been admitted. It is only in the first week of July, 2011 when the appellant requested for the number of the case that certain papers were returned by the counsel, which were the certified copies of the orders of the Trial Court and the Lower Appellate Court, which were duly stamped and the stamps were crossed by the registry of this Court by mentioning the date as 9.6.2003. Under such circumstances the appellant states that a delay of approximately eight years one month has occurred for which he seeks condonation.
Rule 5 of Chapter 1, Part-A of the Rules and Orders of Punjab and Haryana High Court Volume-5 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) deals with the limitation for filing the appeal which reads as under:-
“5. Amendment-(1) The Deputy Registrar may return for amendment and re-filing within a time not exceeding 10 days at a time, 40 days in the aggregate, to be fixed by him any amendment of appeal for the reasons specified in Order XLI, Rule3, Cvil Procedure Code.
(2) If the memorandum of appeal is not amended within the time allowed by the Deputy Registrar under sub-rule (1) it shall be listed for orders before the Court.”
R.S.A. No. 3627 of 2011(O&M) -3-
In view of the rule, reproduced herein above, a returned appeal after removal/rectification of the objections is required to be re-filed within 10 days. However, the period can be again extended after the expiry of 10 days for another 10 days and so on and, in any case, not exceeding 40 days in the aggregate.
In the present case, from the perusal of the application, what at best can be culled out is that the appeal was filed vide Diary No.16524. The application does not furnish any details whatsoever regarding the date of filing, the same having been returned by the registry or for that matter any date with respect to re-filing of the same, if, at all. A bald assertion has been made that since the year 2003 up to the year 2011 inquiries have been made from the counsel and it was only in July, 2011 that it was found that the appeal initially having been filed and returned on account of certain objections had not been re-filed.
The application seeking condonation of such an inordinate delay of 3097 days is completely bereft of the requisite details. No cause much less sufficient cause has been shown for such a long delay. It is the duty of the party to follow his/her case. It is beyond comprehension that an applicant/appellant has not even bothered to have made concrete inquiries as regards the pendency of his case for a period of almost 8 years. It only reflects of the sheer negligence on the part of the applicant/appellant.
It is settled law that the rigour of limitation must apply where the statute so provides. Limitation cannot be condoned on the ground of compassion or equitable considerations or where the parties seeking condonation appear to be negligent. In the case of P.K. Ramchandran V. State of Kerala & Another reported as 1997(7) SCC 556 , the Hon'ble
R.S.A. No. 3627 of 2011(O&M)
-4-
Apex Court held as under:-
“The law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes and the courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The discretion exercised by the High Court was, thus, neither proper nor judicious. The order condoning the delay cannot be sustained. This appeal, therefore, succeeds and the impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay filed in the High Court would stand rejected and the miscellaneous first appeal shall stand dismissed as barred by time.”
In view of the above, the present application for condonation of
delay of 3097 days in filing the appeal is dismissed.
RSA No. 3627 of 2011(O&M)
In view of the dismissal of the application seeking condonation
of delay in filing the appeal, the main appeal is also dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) JUDGE
8.2.2012.
lucky
Whether to be reported? Yes.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether condonation of delay for over eight years in filing an appeal is permitted.
Whether sufficient cause was shown for an inordinate delay attributable to the appellant's negligence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
P.K. Ramchandran V. State of Kerala & AnotherApplied¶24
1997(7) SCC 556 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dharam Pal Chauhan
Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board
Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
