Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 202 (RAJ)

Moti Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2005-01-24

SUNIL KUMAR GARG

body2005
Judgment 1. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the order of the learned Single Judge. The appellants Moti Ram and Nand Kishore were working as Cashier and Manager respectively with the 4th respondent Sardar Shahar Kriya Vikraya Sahkari Samiti Ltd. The said society went in liquidation as a result of which the services of the appellants were terminated. It appears that a joint order under Section 74 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 came to be passed against the appellants on 10.12.1993 by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies for the recovery of Rs. 6,67,760.61 with the interest at the rate of 18% per annum. 2. The case of the appellants is that they were served with the notice for recovery under Rule 92 of the Co-operative Societies Rules on 18.01.2002. They preferred appeal against the said order before the Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jaipur alongwith an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. The appellants took the stand that they were not aware of the order dated 10.12.1993. They came to know about the said order only when the notice was served on them on 18.01.2002. The appellate authority did not find sufficient ground, which prevented them to file appeal within the stipulated period. Thus, by order dated 12.04.2002 dismissed the appeal. The appellants unsuccessfully carried the matter to the State Government by way of revision, which was dismissed on 210.2002. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order has refused to interfere with the order of the State Government and the appellate authority. 3. Having perused the order of the learned Single Judge, we fail to appreciate neither the manner in which the appellate authority or the revisional authority nor the learned Single Judge disposed of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It is of course true that there is a delay of 9 years but there is no material worth the name to show that ex parte order of 1993 was ever served on the appellants. There is substance in saying of the appellants that there is no explanation on part of respondents to show as to how the proceedings to recovery remained pending for long 9 years. This clearly shows that the ex parte order was not served on the appellants. There is substance in saying of the appellants that there is no explanation on part of respondents to show as to how the proceedings to recovery remained pending for long 9 years. This clearly shows that the ex parte order was not served on the appellants. There is also inaction on part of the respondents in not proceeding with the recovery, pursuant to the order passed in the year 1993. Thus, there existed sufficient reason which prevented the appellants not to file the appeal within the stipulated period. It is expedient in the interest of justice that the delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the matter is required to be adjudicated on merit. 4. Consequently, the special appeal is allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge dated 26th March, 2003 is quashed and set aside. The writ petition is allowed. The order of the Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jaipur dated 12.04.2002 and the order of the State Government dismissing the revision petition are set aside. The application filed by the appellants under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed. The delay of 9 years in filing the appeal is condoned. The appeal before the Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jaipur against the order dated 10.12.1993 is directed to be registered. The appellate authority is directed to decide the appeal on merit after hearing the parties. The parties shall appear before the second respondent the Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jaipur on 18.02.2005.