Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1131 (PNJ)

State of Haryana v. Hari Ram Yadav

2013-08-22

RAKESH KUMAR GARG

body2013
Judgment RAKESH KUMAR GARG J.(Oral) Vide judgment and decree dated 27.05.2011, the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rewari, decreed the suit of plaintiff-respondent in the following terms: “It is ordered that the suit of the plaintiff succeeds and same is hereby decreed with costs to the effect that plaintiff is entitled to pension gratuity and other retiral benefits as per provision of Rule 6.16(2) of Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-II along with 12% interest from the date of retirement i.e. 01.05.1984 till the date of realization. The plaintiff is also entitled to enhance pension as per the recommendation of the Sixth pay Commission and announcement of Govt. Haryana as per Rules.” The defendant-State of Haryana filed an appeal challenging the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court before the first Appellate Court. The said appeal was filed after expiry of limitation period. It has been stated before this Court that the judgment in the instant case was passed by the trial Court on 27.05.2011 and the certified copy of the same was received on 09.06.2011 and, thereafter, the appeal was filed 03.08.2011. Thus, in this manner, the appeal was delayed by 28 days and the delay so caused was duly explained. However, according to the counsel for the appellant since there were summer vacations (w.e.f. 16.06.2011 upto 15.07.2011), the appeal could have been filed on the opening day after summer vacations on 16.07.2011 and there is a delay of 18 days only. On the basis of the aforesaid arguments, counsel for the appellant has vehemently submitted before this Court that following substantial question of law arises in this appeal: “Whether the learned Additional District Judge, Rewari erred while dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation only?” It is a matter of fact that the appeal was filed on 03.08.2011. It is well settled that once the period of limitation starts running, the same cannot be stopped and in this manner, there is a delay of 28 days in filing this appeal. However a perusal of the impugned judgment would show that the delay has been explained before the learned first Appellate Court and keeping in view facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that more liberal approach should have been adopted by the first Appellate Court and the matter should have been heard on merits. However a perusal of the impugned judgment would show that the delay has been explained before the learned first Appellate Court and keeping in view facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that more liberal approach should have been adopted by the first Appellate Court and the matter should have been heard on merits. Though learned counsel appearing on behalf of plaintiff-respondent has vehemently supported the impugned judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court, however, he could not seriously dispute the fact that more liberal approach should have been adopted by the first Appellate Court while considering the prayer for condoning the delay of 28 days. Thus, keeping in view facts and circumstances of the case the question, as raised, is answered in favour of the appellant and against the plaintiff-respondent. Resultantly, the impugned judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court is set aside and the case is remanded back to the said Court for fresh decision on merits. Let the parties appear before the said Court on 23.09.2013.