Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 153 (HP)

SATYA PARKASH v. STATE OF H. P.

2003-06-13

NARINDER SINGH THAKUR

body2003
ORDER Honble Mr. Narinder Thakur, Vice Chairman: This application has been field by the applicant for condoning the delay in filing the Execution Petition. However, there has been delay in filing the Execution Petition due to the reason that some person has a filed Review petition No. 9/98 titled as Chander Singh Bramta v. Satya Parkash Kapret and others and this Tribunal on 13.7.1998 stayed the operation of judgment till 2.9.1998 and the same was not confirmed further. The applicant avers that he was under bona fides impression that the interim order has been confirmed as the factual position was not informed to the applicant by his counsel engaged earlier. The applicant avers that he therefore, could not file the Execution Petition earlier. However, the applicant has now changed the counsel and his present counsel on inspection of file has found that the interim order was only upto 2.8.1998 and the same was not confirmed further. He further avers that but for these good sufficient reasons, the applicant would have come before this Honble Tribunal within the stipulated time. However, it is submitted that the applicant stands to gain noting by delaying the matter. No harm or prejudice will be caused to the respondents if the delay in filing the execution petition is condoned in the interest of justice. 2. In the reply filed by the respondents it has been stated that since the matter in dispute is still subjudice before this Tribunal in Review Petition No. 9/98 titled as Chander Singh Bramta v. Stya Parkash Kapret the matter could not be decided at this stage. In case, the orders are being implemented as directed by this Tribunal on 20.3.1998, it would lead to multiplicity of the litigation. 3. This Tribunal on 24.12.2002 ordered the applicant to place on record the affidavit of the counsel representing him earlier to support his contention of mistake of the counsel. He has placed the affidavit of his earlier counsel in which the learned Counsel has fairy admitted that he did not deem it proper to advise the applicant to file Execution Petition. In view of the fact that the review petition was still pending. There was no other reason except the pendency of review petition for not filing the execution petition within the period of limitation. 4. This order/judgment passed by this Tribunal has not been challenged by the respondent Deptt. In view of the fact that the review petition was still pending. There was no other reason except the pendency of review petition for not filing the execution petition within the period of limitation. 4. This order/judgment passed by this Tribunal has not been challenged by the respondent Deptt. either before the Honble High Court or in review. As such, the contention of respondent deptt. in the reply is not sustainable. The review petition has been filed by the person not party in the main original application. It is well settled legal position that the litigant should not suffer because of mistake or wrong advise of the counsel. The law is well settled in 1969(2) Supreme Court Cases 770 titled as State of West Bengal, Appellant v. Administrator, Hawara Municipality, 1994(1) SLC 1 HP High Court titled as Amreet Kaur v. Chaman Lal, 1997 SCT 110 titled as Secretary, Ministry of Works and Housing, Government of India v. Mohinder Singh Jagdev that the litigant should not suffer for the mistake of counsel. The Honble Apex court in AIR 1987 Supreme Court 1352 titled as Nobat Ram Sharma v. Additional District Judge has held that the legislature has conferred to condone the delay by enacting Section 52 of the Indian Limitation Act in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to the parties by disposing of matters on merit. The following broad principles have been laid down to condone the delay:- 1. Ordinarily the litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 3. Everyday delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour delay, every second delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. 4. When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested rights in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. 5. Why not every hour delay, every second delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. 4. When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested rights in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. 5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately or on account of culpable negligence or on account of mala fide. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. 6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. 5. In the light of above discussion, the present M.A. is allowed and delay in filing of Execution Petition is condoned. The M.A. stands disposed of. The Execution Petition has now listed for further hearing.