Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 271 (PNJ)

Punjab State Electricity Board v. Pritpal Kaur

2007-02-14

HEMANT GUPTA

body2007
ORDER Hemant Gupta, J 1. The challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 1.2.1990 passed by the learned First Appellate Court whereby delay of 14 days in filing the appeal was not condoned. 2. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is entitled to regularization of his services w.e.f. 9.6.1977, the date of his adhoc appointment as lineman, instead of from 1.12.1979 for the purpose of seniority and all other consequential benefits. The said suit was decreed on 3.3.1989. 3. The certified copy of the judgment and decree was applied on 11.3.1989 and delivered on 27.3.1989. The appeal was filed on 12.5.1989 alongwith an application for condonation of delay on the ground that sometime has been taken from 27.3.1989 to 10.5.1989 to seek necessary permission and sanction to file the present appeal. The learned First Appellate Court declined such application on the ground that there does not exist sufficient cause for condonation of delay. 4. The petitioner has examined Darshan Kumar as AW-1 who has deposed that XEN Incharge was not available for 8 days. The learned First Appellate Court found that there is nothing on record to show whether the said XEN was on leave and when he attended the office. There is nothing on record to show why the copies were not placed before the XEN on 28 and 29.3.1989. 5. After going through the orders passed by the learned First Appellate Court and after hearing learned counsel for the respondents, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the learned First Appellate Court suffers from patent illegality and irregularity. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in N.Balakrishanan versus Krishnamurthy, A.I.R. 1998 S.C.-3222, has held that negligence in filing an appeal cannot be treated as lack of sufficient cause. The Court should be liberal in condoning the delay unless it is found that there is any lack of bonafide or dilatory tactics. It is to held to the following effect; “It must be remembered that in every case of delay, there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him. It is to held to the following effect; “It must be remembered that in every case of delay, there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him. If the explanation does not smack of malafides or it is not put forth as part of a dilatory strategy, the Court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. But when there is reasonable ground to think that the delay was occasioned by the party deliberately to gain time, then the Court should lean against acceptance of the explanation. While condoning the delay, the Court should not forget the opposite party altogether. It must be borne in mind that he is a loser and he too would have incurred quite a large litigation expenses. It would be a salutary guideline that when the Courts condone the delay due to laches on the part of the applicant the Court shall compensate the opposite party for his loss.” A perusal of the order passed by the learned First Appellate Court does not show that there is any lack of bonafide or dilatory tactics has been adopted by the petitioners in filing the appeal. Mere negligence or carelessness in taking sanction from the competent authority for the purpose of filing the appeal cannot be said to be lack of bonafide. 6. Consequently, the present revision petition is allowed. The order passed by the learned First Appellate Court dated 1.2.1990 is set-aside. The delay of 14 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The appeal is directed to be registered. 7. Learned counsel for the parties are directed to appear before the learned First Appellate Court on 19.3.2007. The First Appellate Court is also directed to decide the appeal in accordance with law. Petition allowed.