Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana Thr Comnr & Secy To Govt ... vs Bhalia Devi on 17 August, 2018
Bench: Krishna Murari, Arun Palli
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
LPA No.1264 of 2018 (O&M)
Date of decision: 17.8.2018
State of Haryana and others ... Appellants
Versus
Bhalia Devei ... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA MURARI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI, JUDGE Present: None.
KRISHNA MURARI, CHIEF JUSTICE (Oral) This appeal under clause X of the Letters Patent has been filed by State of Haryana challenging judgment and order dated 07.05.2015, passed by learned Single Judge, allowing the writ petition in the same terms as judgment rendered in Civil Writ Petition No.9873 of 2013.
It is to be taken note of that 24 writ petitions were disposed by this common judgment against which number of Letters Patent Appeals were filed by the State of Haryana. Some of them have been dismissed on merits, while some of them were barred by limitation. The appeal in question is reported to be barred by delay and laches of 906 days in filing and 222 days in re-filing the appeal. The explanation submitted for this inordinate delay is almost the same as was one tendered in LPA No.32 of 2018 and LPA No.2316 of 2017, which were barred by delay and laches of 913 days and 898 days, respectively. In both the cases, the explanation submitted by the appellant(s) was not found to be sufficient and as such applications under Section 5, seeking condonation of delay, were dismissed and accordingly the appeals were also dismissed being barred by limitation.
1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 21-08-2018 19:45:46 ::: LPA No.1264 of 2018 (O&M) -2- Since in the case in hand also the explanation contained in application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is same as in the aforesaid two appeals, i.e. LPA No.32 of 2018 and LPA No.2316 of 2017, we see no reason to take a different view as taken earlier by us, while dismissing the aforesaid appeals as barred by limitation. Accordingly, there being no ground to condone the delay, application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in this appeal also stands dismissed and as a consequence, the appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation.
(KRISHNA MURARI) CHIEF JUSTICE (ARUN PALLI) JUDGE August 17, 2018 AK Sharma Whether speaking / reasoned: YES Whether Reportable: NO 2 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 21-08-2018 19:45:46 :::