Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana And Another vs Chandra Mani Air 1996 Supreme Court on 23 January, 2012
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
Civil Revision No. 4288 of 2005 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 4288 of 2005 (O&M)
Date of decision: 23.1.2012
State of Haryana and another
.. Petitioners
v.
Daya Kishan and others
.. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. D. D. Gupta, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana.
Mr. L. N. Verma, Advocate for respondents
No. 1 to 8.
...
Rajesh Bindal J.
Challenge in the present petition filed by the State is to the order dated 28.3.2005, whereby the application filed by it seeking condonation of delay of 10 days in filing the appeal before the court below against the judgment and decree dated 7.1.2002, passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurgaon, was dismissed.
Learned counsel for the State submitted that the respondents No. 1 to 5-plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction claiming themselves to be owners in possession of the suit property. The same having been decreed against the State, appeal was preferred before the court below. On account of time taken in the procedure, the same was delayed by 10 days. Accordingly, along with the appeal, an application seeking condonation thereof was filed. The learned court below dismissed the application and consequently the appeal as well. The delay in filing the appeal was not inordinate, rather, in the functioning of the State where the attitude is impersonal and lot of procedures are required to be Civil Revision No. 4288 of 2005 [2] followed. The delay in filing the appeal deserves to be condoned.
On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 8 submitted that in the application filed by the State before the court below, the delay had not been explained. On failure, the learned court below had rightly dismissed the application. The delay of even substantial period can be condoned if a case is made out. Sometimes, even delay of one day may be enough to non-suit a party. He further submitted that the present petition should not be entertained as it could be filed only under Section 115 CPC. This course has been adopted by the State only to cover up the limitation in filing the petition before this court.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.
As has been discussed by the learned court below in the impugned order, there was delay of 10 days in filing the appeal. It was explained by the State that certified copy of the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 7.1.2002 was obtained and opinion was sought from the Legal Remembrancer on 13.2.2002 regarding fitness of the case for filing the appeal and immediately thereafter steps were taken and the appeal was filed on 2.3.2002. The delay cannot be said to be intentional or wilful considering the impersonal attitude in the working of the State.
Hon'ble the Supreme Court while dealing with an application for condonation of delay filed by the State in State of Haryana Vs. Chandra Mani AIR 1996 Supreme Court, 1623 observed as under:-
"When the State is an applicant, praying for condonation of delay, it is common knowledge that on account of impersonal machinery and the inherited bureaucratic methodology imbued with the note-making, file-pushing, and passing-on- the buck ethos, delay on the part of the State is less difficult to understand though more difficult to approve, but the State represents collective cause of the community. It is axiomatic that decisions are taken by officers/agencies proverbially at slow pace and encumbered process of pushing the files from table to table and keeping it on table for considerable time Civil Revision No. 4288 of 2005 [3] causing delay intentional or otherwise is a routine. Considerable delay of procedural red tape in the process of their making decision is a common feature. Therefore, certain amount of latitude is not impermissible. If the appeals brought by the State are lost for such default no person is individually affected but what in the ultimate analysis suffers, is public interest. The expression "sufficient cause" should, therefore, be considered with pragmatism in justice-oriented approach rather than the technical detection of sufficient cause for explaining every day's delay. The factors which are peculiar to and characteristic of the functioning of the Governmental conditions would be cognizant to and requires adoption of pragmatic approach in justice-oriented process. The Court should decide the matters on merits unless the case is hopelessly without merit.
xx xx xx Equally, the State cannot be put on the same footing as an individual. The individual would always be quick in taking the decision whether he would pursue the remedy by way of an appeal or application since he is a person legally injured while State is an impersonal machinery working through its officers or servants."
Same view was expressed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO and others, (2005) 3 SCC 752, which was further followed by this Court in Civil Revision No. 3640 of 2004--State of Haryana and others v. Sham Lal, decided on 29.8.2007; Civil Revision No. 601 of 2003--State of Punjab and others v. Jagan Nath, decided on 24.9.2007 and Civil Revision No. 6239 of 2006--State of Haryana v. Shri H. S. Gulati and another, decided on 13.1.2009.
Considering the aforesaid enunciation of law, where Hon'ble the Supreme Court opined that the expression "sufficient cause" should be considered with pragmatism in justice-oriented approach, rather than Civil Revision No. 4288 of 2005 [4] technical detection of sufficient cause for explaining every day's delay. The factors which are peculiar to and characteristic of the functioning of the government cannot be lost sight of. The court should decide the cases on merits unless they are hopelessly time-barred. The State cannot be put on the same footing as an individual who is always quick in taking decisions and pursuing the remedy.
As far as contention raised by learned counsel for the respondents that the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution should not have been entertained as the same was time barred in case it was to be filed under Section 115 CPC is concerned, suffice to notice that no such objection was raised at the time of admission of the petition on 20.3.2006.
For the reasons mentioned above, the impugned order passed by the learned court below is set aside. The matter is remitted back for fresh consideration on merits. The parties are directed to appear before the learned District Judge, Gurgaon on 25.2.2012 for further proceedings. The learned District Judge can either keep the appeal with himself or entrust to any of the Additional District Judges.
The petition stands disposed of.
( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge 23.1.2012 mk (Refer to Reporter)