Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 62 (JK)

State Of J. &K. v. Ab. Rehman Wani

2002-03-14

MUZAFFAR JAN

body2002
1. Application for condonation of delay has been submitted with prayer to condone the delay of one year and 23 days on the main grounds that the applicants-appellants could not file the appeal in time because the counsel for appellants informed them about the judgment and decree dated 18.4.1998 in the last week of July, 1998 and thereafter it took some time for them to obtain the copy of the decree and judgment. The matter was thereafter referred to law and sericulture departments for clearance on the administrative side which took some more time and ultimately further delay was caused due to annual Darbar Move and in these circumstances the delay was not deliberate and, as such, the delay be condoned. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellants has submitted that since the delay was caused in completing the official formalities and on account of negligence of the counsel to inform the appellants about the date of announcement of judgment, therefore, the delay in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in AIR 2000 SC 2306 be condoned. 3. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant-appellants to condone the delay cannot be permitted for multiple reasons. The fact that there is a general tendency of the functionaries of the State to sleep over their rights, in an indolent manner, will not entitle them to the indulgence of the court while dealing with applications for condonation of delay. If the trend of the State functionaries demonstrating indifferent attitude and indilligence as a litigant is encouraged, avoidable delay will be caused in the disposal of cases besides causing prejudice to other side. The Apex Court in Judgment Today 1998 Vol. 7 SC 21 has observed that the period of limitation cannot be extended and delay condoned only on equitable grounds. In AIR 1999 Raj. 248 it has been held that where sufficient cause is not shown, delay may not be condoned. The Supreme Court has also observed that where the limitation is allowed to be passed without taking proper care, the explanation must be for the period pertaining to the date of limitation. This view has been held in AIR 1998 SC 733. 4. The explanation submitted by the present applicant-appellants obviously pertains to the period after limitation. The Supreme Court has also observed that where the limitation is allowed to be passed without taking proper care, the explanation must be for the period pertaining to the date of limitation. This view has been held in AIR 1998 SC 733. 4. The explanation submitted by the present applicant-appellants obviously pertains to the period after limitation. The explanation for delay should have been for the period after the judgment was passed on 18-04-1998 till 19-07-1998, the period prescribed for limitation. There is nothing submitted in the application or any other document to explain the delay of not filing the appeal within this period of limitation. On the contrary the explanation submitted is for the period starting from 03-08-1998 when the copy of the judgment and decree was applied and subsequently issued on 04-08-1998, till the application was filed on 12-05-1999. On this legal aspect the reason given in the explanation cannot be accepted as valid to condone the delay. 5. The Apex Court in a judgment reported as AIR 1998 SC 2276, has observed as under:- Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribe 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.� 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court reported as AIR 2000 SC 2306. With due respects the facts and circumstances are distinguishable and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the above judgment does not govern the present controversy. In the said authority the issue of seniority was under adjudication and as the High Court has not considered the rules governing the seniority when the writ petition was decided, in such circumstances the Apex Court condoned the delay of 679 days and held that since the order of the High Court was passed in contravention of well established rules, therefore, on those facts and circumstances the delay was condoned. 7. The present application for condonation of delay has been filed to condone the delay in filing the second appeal against the concurrent findings on facts of two courts. The legal aspects which are prayed to be considered could have been submitted and agitated before the trial courts. 7. The present application for condonation of delay has been filed to condone the delay in filing the second appeal against the concurrent findings on facts of two courts. The legal aspects which are prayed to be considered could have been submitted and agitated before the trial courts. Same has not been done at the appropriate stages of the trial in the lower courts. From the facts and circumstances as made out from record, no cause, much less a sufficient cause, is shown for condoning the delay for the period of limitation. The application for condonation of delay merits to be dismissed. Application is accordingly dismissed. Interim directions issued, if any, shall stand vacated. Record be sent back forthwith.