The High Court dismissed the appeal as time-barred, rejecting the appellant's prayer for condonation of 1118 days delay, finding the department negligent and insufficient in pursuing the appeal.
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.
1
RSA No.2611 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.2611 of 2013(O&M) Date of decision: 03.07.2013
Municipal Corporation Rohtak
......Appellant(s)
Versus
Shakuntla and others
......Respondent(s)
CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
Present: Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate for the appellant.
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral)
Defendant-appellant/Municipal Corporation Rohtak (earlier Municipal committee, Rohtak) has filed the instant appeal challenging the judgments and decrees of the Courts below whereby suit of the plaintiffrespondents for permanent injunction restraining the appellant from interfering into their possession over the suit property except in due course of law, has been decreed.
There is a delay of 1118 days in filing this appeal. Along with this appeal, an application i.e. CM No.6941-C of 2013 for condonation of delay has been filed. The grounds set out in the application for condonation of delay read thus:
“2. That the case was sent to an Advocate namely Raman B. Garg and received on 22.3.2010 to file an appeal. Thereafter a letter dated 1.10.2010 was sent for knowing the status of the appeal. Thereafter again a letter dated 9.11.2011 was sent for knowing the status of the appeal. Thereafter again a letter dated 16.11.2011
Saini Pushpinder 2013.07.19 11:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
RSA No.2611 of 2013 2
was sent for knowing the status of the appeal. Thereafter, again a letter dated 6.12.2011 was sent for knowing the status of the appeal. Thereafter again a letter dated 12.9.2012 was sent for knowing the status of the appeal where it was mentioned that one Jaideep under R.T.I Act that no appeal has been filed in the case. All the letters were sent for knowing the status. Thereafter, on 7.12.2012 a detailed letter was written to the advocate for filing the appeal and disclose about the status of the case. Till date no information has been sent and no appeal number has been given. From the record no appeal has been filed to be filed.
3. That since the appeal was not filed, vide letter dated 30.1.2013, advocate was engaged for filing the appeal. The record were again checked and the case is being filed today i.e. 16.5.2013. However, in the mean time delay of 1118 days occurred in filing the appeal.”
A perusal of the aforesaid reasons, as set out by the appellant, for condoning such a huge delay do not convince the judicial mind of the Court, as a perusal of the aforesaid paragraphs would show that after entrusting the case to the lawyer on 22.3.2010, the officers of the appellant-Department except writing letters to the said counsel did nothing to find out the actual status of the appeal. The facts, as mentioned, completely establish the fact that the higher officers of the appellantDepartment were totally negligent in pursing the instant appeal and never bothered to check up with the lawyer allegedly engaged by them by sending an official to his office.
Saini Pushpinder 2013.07.19 11:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
RSA No.2611 of 2013
3
Thus, this Court is of the view that the reasons as submitted by
the appellant for condoning such a huge delay are not sufficient.
Thus, the prayer for condoning the delay is rejected.
Resultantly, this appeal is also dismissed being time barred.
July 03, 2013 ps
(RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE
Saini Pushpinder 2013.07.19 11:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appellant sufficient grounds are shown for condonation of delay of 1118 days in filing an appeal.
Municipal Corporation Rohtak
Shakuntla and others
Rakesh Kumar Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
