Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Ltd & Ors. v. R.C. Kathuria
Case at a glance
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. That if the above said delay is not condoned then the appellant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury.” Thus, it can be seen that the Legal Remembrancer of the Department had advised the concerned official to file this appeal vide letter dated 30.3.2010/2.4.2010 and…
Judgment
Mr. Parveen Kumar, Advocate for the appellants. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral) This is defendants' second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby suit of the plaintiff-respondent has been decreed. As per the record, this appeal has been filed after a delay of 161 days after the expiry of period of limitation. CM No.12394-C of 2010 has been filed seeking permission for condoning the aforesaid delay. In support of the aforesaid application, an affidavit of Sh.J.C. Katyal, Under Secretary, HR-I, Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Ltd. Panchkula, has also been filed. The averments made in the application reads as follows: “1. That the appellants are filing the accompanying appeal and the same is likely to be allowed on the grounds taken therein. The grounds of appeal may kindly read as part of this application.
That after receiving the information from their counsel at the lower court applied for the certified copy of the judgment dated 11.2.2010 through their counsel RSA No.4118 of 2010 (O&M) 2 on 15.2.2010 and the same was prepared and delivered on 25.2.2010.
That after the receipt of the judgment and decree dated 11.2.2010 passed by Ld. Additional District Judge, the case was processed for taking a decision regarding filing the appeal in this Hon'ble Court against the above said judgment and decree and sent to competent authority i.e. Legal Remembrancer at Panchkula to take a final decision in the matter. The case was examined by authorities at the different level and competent authority decided to file the appeal against the abovesaid judgments and decrees passed by the Ld. Lower Court and advised to the Under Secretary/HRI vide letter dated 30.3.2010/2.4.2010 to supply the relevant documents/information to the present counsel to prepare and file the appeal against the judgments and decrees passed by the Ld. Courts below.
That thereafter, the copies of the judgments and decrees and other documents were collected and after this all the relevant documents of the case have been handed over to the present counsel and asked to prepare the draft of appeal and sent the same for approval of the competent authority. A lot of time was also consumed in typing the documents, preparation of the appeal and signing the documents from the competent authority. However by that time appeal had already become barred by limitation.
That there is a procedural delay in filing the appeal RSA No.4118 of 2010 (O&M) 3 because there is lengthy procedure and the case was considered at different level and different offices which are situated at different and long places. Thus appeal is being filed in this Hon'ble Court. In this way a delay of 161 days has been occurred in filing the appeal.
That the above said delay is neither intentional nor wilful or deliberate but the same has been happened on account of above said facts and circumstances and due to lengthy office procedure.
That if the above said delay is not condoned then the appellant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury.” Thus, it can be seen that the Legal Remembrancer of the Department had advised the concerned official to file this appeal vide letter dated 30.3.2010/2.4.2010 and has directed to supply the relevant documents/information to the counsel to prepare and file the appeal. As per the record, the limitation for filing this appeal was upto 23.4.2010 but this appeal was filed after a delay of 161 days of the expiry of limitation period. The delay has been said to be caused for collecting and typing the documents and hand over the same to counsel for preparation of draft appeal and approval of the same at different levels. It is a matter of record that this appeal appears to be prepared on 1.6.2010 but the affidavit and vakalatnama has been signed only on 13.8.2010 and the appeal was actually filed on 30.10.2010.
It is settled law that the expression 'sufficient cause' cannot be construed too liberally, merely because the party in default is a Government Body. The Court is to show the same consideration to the private party and the State. Liberal construction can be given to advance RSA No.4118 of 2010 (O&M) 4 substantial justice when there is no negligence or inaction or bona fide is imputed. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Vidarbhavenaer Industries 1994 Supp. (2)SCC 696 has been pleased to lay down that for seeking condonation of delay the party is to plead the facts constituting 'sufficient cause' and in the absence thereof delay cannot be condoned. Hon'ble Supreme Court again in the case of State of Rajasthan and anr Vs. Jaimal 1991 Supp. (2)SCC 286, has been pleased to lay down that vague and general explanation is unacceptable, and in the absence satisfactory explanation, no ground can be made out to condone the delay.
Thus, it would be seen, that though law is settled, that liberal interpretation is to be given to the sufficient cause but at the same time the limitation prescribed for filing an appeal cannot be ignored. The decision is to be taken by the court on the facts and circumstances of each case. If in view of the proposition of settled law and facts of case are seen, it would show, that absolutely no detail was given as to how the delay had occurred and whether the same was justified or not. Mere assertion that the delay occurred due to administrative procedure involved cannot be said to be 'sufficient cause' to condone the delay. It is well settled that delay caused due to administrative exigencies cannot be a good ground much less sufficient ground for condoning the delay. Thus, I find no merit in this application. The same is dismissed. Since the application for condonation of delay in fling this appeal has been dismissed, the main appeal is also dismissed as time barred.
RSA No.4118 of 2010 (O&M) 5 It seems that there is a negligence on the part of the officials/officers concerned for causing delay in filing of the appeal. The Managing Director of the Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Ltd. Panchkula is directed to hold an enquiry and fix the responsibility of the concerned officials/officers and thereafter, the Department is also entitled to recover the loss, if any, caused to it because of the aforesaid negligence on the part of its delinquent officials/officers. A copy of this judgment be sent to the Chief Secretary of the State of Haryana also. November 1, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.