Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana And Others vs Parvinder Singh on 17 September, 2012
Author: A.N. Jindal
Bench: A.N. Jindal
CR No. 4510 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR No. 4510 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision: September 17, 2012
State of Haryana and others
...Petitioners
Versus
Parvinder Singh
...Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL
Present: Mr. Ajay Gupta, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana,
for the petitioners.
Mr. Sanjeev Gupta, Advocate,
for the respondent.
A.N. JINDAL, J. (Oral)
The judgment in this case was passed by the trial court on 11.4.2008, against which an appeal was preferred by the State of Haryana 7.2.2009 alongwith an application for condonation of eight months twenty six days delay. The first appellate court, vide impugned order dated 4.4.2009, has declined the application against which the present revision petition preferred by the State of Haryana is before me.
Mr. Ajay Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, has placed reliance on the judgment delivered in the case Commissioner Nagar Parishad, Bhilwara Versus Labour Court, Bhilwara and another 2009 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) 893, wherein the delay of 178 days in filing the appeal was condoned. He has also relied upon the judgment in the case State of Haryana Versus Chandra Mani and others (1996) 3 Supreme Court Cases 132, wherein the Apex Court while observing that the State is an impersonal machinery working through its officers or servants, therefore, certain amount of latitude within reasonable limits is permissible and thus CR No. 4510 of 2011 2 condoned the delay of 109 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal.
The petitioners were not to be benefitted by filing delayed appeal, thereafter to get it decided late. It is also equally settled that meritorious claims deserve to be decided on merits rather than to ignore them without giving opportunity of being heard to the parties. The official formalities sometimes take time in bringing them to the culmination so as to make mature for taking it to the Court for which the State should not be penalized.
In the above background, this petition is allowed, impugned order is set aside, the first appellate court is directed to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits. The first appellate court would not be influenced by the earlier opinion expressed by it in the impugned order regarding merits.
September 17, 2012 (A.N. JINDAL) prem JUDGE