Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 573 (JK)

State of J&K v. Dwarka Nath Raina

2017-08-08

JANAK RAJ KOTWAL

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. Condonation of delay, which as per the Registry’s note is of 646 days, is sought by the defendants for filing the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 06.10.2012 passed by the learned District Judge, Jammu in a suit for recovery of Rs. 16,08,000/ filed by the respondent (plaintiff) as compensation for loss of eye sight suffered by him due to the negligence of a Government Doctor, herein respondent No. 4. Period of limitation for filing the Civil 1st Appeal to this Court is 90 days. Under section 5 of the limitation Act, 1995 (for short the Act) delay in filing the appeal or application can be condoned when the appellant or applicant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within the prescribed period. It is well settled that in seeking condonation of delay under section 5 of the Act, every days’ delay is required to be explained by the appellant or the applicant, as the case may be. 3. In this case, excluding the seven days’ period involved in delivery of the copies of the judgment and decree to the appellants, the Registry has calculated 646 days’ delay in filing the appeal. It is noticed that application for obtaining the copies of the judgment and decree was filed on 22.03.2013 and copies were delivered on 28.03.2013 which in turn shows that even the application for obtaining the copies was filed on behalf of the appellants after the elapse of 90 days limitation period from the date of judgment. The condonation application on its perusal would show that no explanation has been tendered in regard to the failure in filing the appeal within the prescribed period of 90 days and right up to 22.03.2013 when for the first time application for obtaining the copies of the judgment and the decree was filed. Explanation, whatsoever, is given in regard to the period starting after the receipt of the copies up to the date of filing of the appeal, which too on a bare reading would show its hollowness and insufficiency. Explanation, whatsoever, is given in regard to the period starting after the receipt of the copies up to the date of filing of the appeal, which too on a bare reading would show its hollowness and insufficiency. Para 5 of the application, which explains the cause for delay in filing the appeal is reproduced: “That after receiving the copy of judgment, immediate steps were taken for implementation of Judgment but after going through the relevant records the matter was taken with Administrative Department as well as Law Department for sanction to file LPA. The sanction to file LPA was issued by the Law Department on 10.02.2014 and after receiving the sanction letter immediate steps were taken to file LPA through Mrs. Neeru Goswami Deputy Advocate General. Further Mrs. Neeru Goswami Deputy Advocate General informed Law Department to engage new counsel for filing case. Hence new sanction was issued on the name Mrt. Shaista Hakeem Deputy Advocate General on 20.03.2014. When Mrt. Shaishta Hakeem Deputy Advocate General gone through the sanction it was found that sanction was issued for filing LPA against the order of Hon’ble Principal District Court instead of issuing sanction of C.I.M.A. Hence vide letter dated SH/ DAG/2014 Misc. - I dated 24.03.2014 Mrt. Shaista Hakeem Deputy Advocate General requested the Law Department for issuing the sanction for filing the C.I.M.A. instead of LPA and same was issued on 26.03.2014. The time from the date of judgment and filing of C.I.M.A. has been consumed for collecting the record and fulfilling all the formalities which were mandatory to be fulfilled.” 4. It is thus a case where no explanation has been tendered for not filing the appeal within prescribed period of 90 days and after that up to the time of filing the application for obtaining the copies of the judgment and decree. In backdrop of such failure, explanation in regard to the period falling after the date of obtaining the copies of the impugned judgment and decree is of no relevance and value and need not be discussed. 5. Viewed thus, no case for condoning the delay in filing the appeal is made out so application is dismissed and in the result the proposed appeal is also dismissed.