Patna High Court - Orders
The State Of Bihar Through Collector, ... vs Randhir Kumar Singh on 3 October, 2012
Author: V. Nath
Bench: V. Nath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
First Appeal No.217 of 2011
======================================================
The State Of Bihar Through Collector, Jamui & Ors
.... .... Appellant/s
Versus
Randhir Kumar Singh
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Vishwa Mohan Kumar Sinha, Advocate.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ganpati Trivedi, Advocate.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. NATH
ORAL ORDER
10 03-10-2012Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The interlocutory application has been filed for condonation of delay by the appellant-State of Bihar. The delay is of 7 months and 9 days. In the application the appellants have made the statement by giving details of the days during which the file moved before different departments and authorities till the present appeal has been filed. The appellants have stated that they acted promptly and delay was caused due to hierarchy of officials which they were required to move before filing of this appeal.
The sole respondent, who is plaintiff in the suit, has filed counter affidavit and contested the claim of the appellant. Mr. Ganpati Trivedi, the learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent, has submitted that no sufficient cause has been shown by the appellants for condonation of delay by pointing out to the Patna High Court FA No.217 of 2011 (10) dt.03-10-2012 2 statements made in the interlocutory application. The learned counsel has put emphasis that the specific reason has not been mentioned for the delay caused before different authorities. It has been further contended by the learned counsel that the appellants have caused the delay in filing this appeal only to harass the respondent.
Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the averments made in the petition for condonation of delay and counter affidavit, it is manifest that the plaintiff had filed the suit for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from not interfering in the work of the plaintiff in extracting sand in pursuance to the lease. However, by the impugned judgment and decree, the learned court below, instead of granting the relief for permanent injunction to the plaintiff, has allowed compensation to the plaintiff. The amount of compensation is about Rs. 10,00,000/-. The appellants have stated in the limitation petition that the delay in filing this appeal has occurred due to the movement of file to the different authorities whose opinion and approval was necessary for filing this appeal. From the averments made in the interlocutory application and statement made in the counter affidavit, it does not appear that there was any deliberate attempt on behalf of the appellants to Patna High Court FA No.217 of 2011 (10) dt.03-10-2012 3 cause delay in filing this appeal rather it is obvious that by causing delay the appellants have invited a serious risk of dismissal of the appeal as barred by limitation. Moreover, the involvement of a heavy public money also cannot be ignored and therefore it is desirable in the interest of justice that this appeal be allowed to be heard on merits instead of its dismissal as barred by limitation.
Ex consequenti, the interlocutory application is allowed and delay in filing this appeal is condoned.
The office is directed to expedite the hearing of this appeal.
(V. Nath, J) Devendra/-