Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shriomani Gurdwara Parbandhak ... vs Mahant Isher Singh Chela Deva Singh on 3 March, 1972
Equivalent citations: AIR1972P&H389, AIR 1972 PUNJAB AND HARYANA 389
ORDER
1. This is an application under Article 133 of the Constitution of India for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against our judgment dated 15th October, 1970 in F. A. O. 82 of 1963.
2. Mr. T. S. Mangat, learned counsel for the respondent, has raised the preliminary objection that the application is barred by limitation. He also contends that the application is not in accordance with law.
3. Our judgment against which leave is sought was rendered on 15th October, 1970. The period of limitation fixed for an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court is 60 days under Article 132 of the Limitation Act, 1963. This period of 60 days expired on 14th December, 1970. In addition to this period, the petitioner is entitled to the time spent in obtaining copy of the judgment appealed against, i.e., our judgment. It is common ground that he is entitled to 7 days on this count. Thus, the application could have been lodges in this Court on or before 21st December, 1970. In fact the application was filed on 17th December, 1970. But it lacked in two material particulars, (1) that the grounds of appeal as required by O. 45, R. 3, Code of Civil Procedure were not filed along with it, and (2) the value of the subject-matter in dispute at the date of the dispute in the Court of first instance was not mentioned. The office returned the application on 18th December, 1970 with the direction that it should be refiled within a week. It was pointed out in the office objection that the grounds of appeal to the Supreme Court were not forthcoming. The application was refiled on 4th of February, 1971 with the note: "Refiled after compliance. Delay in refiling is regretted as instructions were to be obtained from head office which is at Amritsar. Curiously enough, the grounds of appeal are dated 7th of January, 1971. No instructions with regard to grounds of appeal, therefore, were required to be obtained from the head office. The objection that the application is barred by limitation was raised by the respondent in his reply dated 5th August, 1971, and in spite of that no application for condoning the delay in refiling the application or in making a proper application on the 4th of February, 1971, has been made.
4. The short question that requires determination is whether the application as presented on 4th of February, 1971 is within limitation? There can be no denying the fact that the application as presented on 4th February, 1971 was in accordance with law and, therefore, a valid application. The application as presented on 17th December, 1970, was no application in the eye of law because the mandatory provision of Order 45, Rule 3 was not complied with. Even the rules framed by this Court, namely Rule 1(a), Chapter 8-A of the High Court Rules and Orders, Volume V have not been complied with. The relevant part of this rule reads thus:--
"A petition for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court shall comply with the requirements of Rule 3 (1), Order XLV of the Code of Civil Procedure and contains the following particulars", and clause (v) requires that the value of the subject-matter of the suit in the Court of the first instance has to be stated, and this has not been done even right up to date. It is, therefore, clear that there was no application in the eye of law on the 17th December, 1970 and for the first time such an application came into being on 4th of February, 1971, and even then without complying with the requirement of Rule 1(a) of Chapter 8-A of the High Court rules and Orders, Volume V. In that the application is hopelessly barred by limitation and must be dismissed on that ground alone. In addition to that, it has to be dismissed on another ground, namely that clause (v) of Rule 1(a) of Chapter 8-A has not been complied with even up-to-date.
5. For the reasons recorded above, we reject the application, with no order as to costs.
6. Application rejected.