Appellant challenged a decision for inadequate explanation of 497-day delay in re-filing appeal. Court rejected being satisfied with the explanation and dismissed appeal as barred by limitation.
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.
I N THE HI GH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDI GARH
LPA No. 824 of 2019 ( O&M) DATE OF DECI SI ON: 27. 05. 2019
Sh. Pr em Pal
…. . Appel l ant
ver sus
Punj ab St at e Power Cor por at i on Li mi t ed and ot her s
. . . . . Respondent s
CORAM: - HON’ BLE MR. JUSTI CE KRI SHNA MURARI , CHI EF JUSTI CE HON’ BLE MR. JUSTI CE ARUN PALLI , JUDGE
Pr esent : None f or t he appel l ant
KRI SHNA MURARI , CHI EF JUSTI CE : ( Or al )
Case cal l ed out . No one appear s on behal f of t he appel l ant t o pr ess t hi s appeal . However , we have gone t hr ough t he paper - book of t he appeal .
Of f i ce has r epor t ed del ay and l aches of 48 days i n f i l i ng and 497 days i n r e- f i l i ng t he appeal . I nsof ar as del ay of 48 days i n f i l i ng t he appeal i s concer ned, t he same i s condoned. However , wi t h r espect t o 497 days’ del ay i n r e- f i l i ng t he appeal , we do not f i nd t he expl anat i on submi t t ed i n appl i cat i on under sect i on 151 CPC t o be suf f i ci ent . What has been st at ed i s t hat t he appeal was f i l ed on 07. 11. 2017 and t he same was r et ur ned by t he r egi st r y wi t h cer t ai n obj ect i ons and af t er r ecei vi ng t he same t he l ear ned counsel put t he paper - book i n some ot her br i ef and t her eaf t er i t was t r aced onl y on 06. 09. 2018. The appeal was agai n f i l ed and r et ur ned back f or r emovi ng some obj ect i ons and was t her eaf t er agai n f i l ed on 12. 02. 2019 and was agai n r et ur ned f or r emovi ng cer t ai n ot her
PARKASH CHAND 2019.05.28 15:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
LPA- 824- 2019
- 2 -
def ect s on 20. 02. 2019 and t hat i s how t he del ay of 497 days has occur r ed i n r e- f i l i ng t he appeal . The expl anat i on submi t t ed by t he appel l ant does not i nspi r e any conf i dence.
We see no r eason as t o how al l t he def ect s poi nt ed out by t he r egi st r y wer e not r emoved on t he ver y f i r st t i me when t he f i l e was r et ur ned back f or t he pur pose. Thi s onl y shows t he cal l ous at t i t ude of t he appel l ant .
I n t he f act s and ci r cumst ances, we ar e not i ncl i ned t o condone t he i nor di nat e del ay of 497 days i n r e- f i l i ng t he appeal . CM- 1963- LPA- 2019, accor di ngl y, st ands di smi ssed and, as a r esul t , t he appeal st ands di smi ssed as bar r ed by l i mi t at i on.
( KRI SHNA MURARI ) CHI EF JUSTI CE
( ARUN PALLI ) JUDGE
NOTE: Whet her speaki ng/ non- speaki ng: Speaki ng Whet her r epor t abl e: YES/ NO
PARKASH CHAND 2019.05.28 15:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the delay of 497 days in re-filing the appeal can be condoned given the explanation provided.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Prem Pal
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited
Krishna Murari
Arun Palli
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
