Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1271 (PNJ)

Union Of India v. Hari Singh

2009-07-30

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2009
Judgment Vinod K.Sharma, J. 1. CM No. 24105-CII of 2007 Allowed. The applicant-petitioners are exempted from filing the certified copy of order dated 30.7.2004. CR No. 6541 of 2007 This revision petition is directed against the order dated 12.12.2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul, dismissing an application moved by the petitioners, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condoning the delay of 215 days in filing the appeal. 2. The condonation of delay was sought on the plea, that the delay had occurred due to the administrative procedure involved in taking decision with regard to filing of the appeal. The explanation given was, that the judgment and decree was passed by the learned trial Court on 30.7.2004, and certified copy was applied on 31.7.2004, which was prepared and delivered to the petitioners on 4.8.2004. 3. The petitioners approached the Army Headquarters for approval for filing the appeal on 1.9.2004 and final decision was taken on 14.9.2004. The decision was taken by the Records Grenadiers, Jabalpur. 4. In spite of specific decision having been taken on 14.9.2004, appeal was not filed, as the department indulged in inter-departmental correspondence for filing of appeal. 5. From 15.09.2004 till 18.1.2005, the petitioners indulged in writing letters to 16 Haryana NCC Bn. for filing the appeal. Discussions were also held on with the District Attorney, who according to the petitioners, was not willing to file an appeal, unless sanction was granted by Legal Remembrancer, Haryana. 6. It is not explained as to why the Union of India kept waiting to file the appeal, only through District Attorney, as the District Attorney was to be engaged as a counsel with the permission of the Legal Remembrancer. 7. Even otherwise, no explanation is forthcoming from 15.9.2004 to 18.1.2005 for not filing the appeal. The pleadings in application itself show, that the matter was being taken in most casual manner, without bothering for law of limitation. 8. Though law with regard to limitation is to be applied liberally, specially in case of the Government Departments, but at the same time law of limitation cannot be put to naught, only because the party happens to be Government agency or the Government. 9. 8. Though law with regard to limitation is to be applied liberally, specially in case of the Government Departments, but at the same time law of limitation cannot be put to naught, only because the party happens to be Government agency or the Government. 9. The Honble Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. The Administrator, Howrah Municipality and others, AIR 1972 Supreme Court 749 was pleased to lay down, that expression "sufficient cause" cannot be construed liberally merely because the party in default happens to be Government. 10. The Honble Rajasthan High Court in State of Rajasthan v. Mishrilal Sharma, 2001(4) SCT 922 has been pleased to lay down as under :- "9. Having considered the reasons assigned for the delay in question, in our considered view, it is admitted position that certified copy of the impugned judgment was received on 1.5.1993 by the Government Advocate and it had reached the Revenue Section on 3.6.93, and the Law Department on 14.6.93 from where it was returned back and received in the Revenue Department on 22.6.93. That apart, after having received the file on 22.6.93 from the Law Department, the Department of Revenue took administrative decision on 27.7.93 to challenge the impugned judgment, but surprisingly enough, the appeal was filed on or about 20.9.93. Moreover, even after having taken decision on 27.7.93 to challenge the impugned judgment, when the Officer Incharge contacted the Government Advocate on 28.9.93 but without any informations for explaining the delay and without certified copy in his possession. Whatever the circumstances stated for the delay, reproduced above, make it abundantly clear that the needed prompt action was not taken on the part of the officers responsible to file the appeal immediately after the decision having been taken to challenge the impugned judgment. Be that as it may, the manner in which the officers have taken time to delay the matter, in our considered view, is certainly not amounted to sufficient cause. Be that as it may, the manner in which the officers have taken time to delay the matter, in our considered view, is certainly not amounted to sufficient cause. Thus, it is not a case of bona fide lapses rather it is a case where the concerned government functionary has acted in most irresponsible manner and more particularly the Law Department where the file was kept pending for obtaining the opinion of the concerned Officer for filing the present appeal from 1st May 1993 to 14th June 1993 and thereafter with the Revenue Department of the State from 22nd June 1993 to 27th of July 1993. Apart from above, even on merits, we do not find it a fit case to entertain this appeal." 11. The facts of the case in hand are similar to the one in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Mishrilal Sharma (supra). The application filed by the petitioners did not disclose any sufficient cause for condoning the delay. 12. The learned lower appellate Court was, therefore, justified in dismissing the appeal as time barred. 13. No ground for interference with the discretion exercised by the learned lower appellate Court, is made out. No merit. Dismissed.