Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Municipal Board Mt.Abu vs Bal Kishan on 27 July, 2020
Author: Arun Bhansali
Bench: Arun Bhansali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 651/2011
Municipal Board Mt.abu through President, Municipal Board,
Mount Abu.
----Appellant
Versus
Bal Kishan S/o Ramsukh Kabra, aged 55 years, resident of
Sunset Road, Mount Abu, District Sirohi (Raj.)
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Yashwant Mehta.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Suresh Kumbhat.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Judgment 27/07/2020 This second appeal is directed against the judgment & decree dated 20.12.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge, Abu Road, whereby the appeal filed by the respondent-plaintiff was allowed and the judgment & decree dated 28.02.2006 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Div.), Mount Abu, dismissing the suit for permanent injunction was set-aside.
The office has reported that the appeal is barred by 73 days. Heard learned counsel for the parties on application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act,1963.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is a delay of 73 days in filing the appeal and therefore, looking to the quantum of delay, the same may be condoned.
Submissions have also been made that the delay occurred for bonafide reasons and therefore, the application be allowed.
Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the submissions.
(Downloaded on 28/07/2020 at 08:45:25 PM)
(2 of 4) [CSA-651/2011] It was submitted that the application is wholly vague and no reason whatsoever has been indicated in the application for delay in filing the appeal. The casualness on part of the appellant is writ large and therefore, the application deserves to be rejected.
Reliance has been placed on State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Rajasthan Sahkari Bank Karamchari Sangh Unit, Ajmer & Ors.:
2016(1)CJ(Civ.)(Raj.) 58 and Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority & Anr. v. Gopi Chand Atreja : 2019(3) CJ(Civ.)(SC) 750.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
The averments made in the application seeking condonation of delay reads as under :-
"1. That the second appeal is question was listed for some delay before this Hon'ble Court.
2. That delay in question was also bonafide one as the officials with appellant were not well versed in law and legal system of India.
3. That just after the decision of the appeal rendered on 20.12.2006, the copy was given on 09.01.2007.
4. That in the fact & circumstances of the case the second appeal ought to have been filed on or before 27.03.2007 but it was filed on
02.06.2007.
5. That after 09.01.2007 a considerable time was consumed by the officials in making intensive study of the case. It was so because under the provisions of 171 of Rajasthan Municipalities Act, the order declaring the Municipal Board Mount Abu as "No Construction Zone" was under consideration of the officials and they (Downloaded on 28/07/2020 at 08:45:25 PM) (3 of 4) [CSA-651/2011] were having the apprehension for filing or not filing the appeal in question.
6. That in that view of the matter, the case file with the judgment under appeal was received by the counsel in the 3rd week of May 2007 and thereafter some time was consumed in studying the case file and then appeal was filed on 02.06.2007.
7. That taking into consideration the above circumstances, the condonation of delay appears to be sinequanon for meeting the ends of justice. Moreover, there is no any change in the position of the respondent."
A bare look at the averments would reveal that it is claimed that the officials of the appellant were not well versed in law and legal system of India; considerable time was consumed in making the intensive study of the case and that the officers were having the apprehension for filing or not filing the appeal in question; the file was received by the counsel in 3rd week of May and the appeal was filed on 02.06.2007 and therefore, the delay be condoned.
The reasons indicated in the application cannot by any stretch of imagination be terms as sufficient cause in filing the appeal with delay. The reasons given are absolutely vague and ipsi dixit which could fit in any case of delay.
On the one hand, a submission has been made that the officials were not well versed in law and legal system and on the other hand, it was indicated that they were making intensive study of the case, which are mutually destructive.
The Division Bench in the case of Rajasthan Sahkari Bank Karamchari Sangh (supra), wherein the delay was of 79 days in (Downloaded on 28/07/2020 at 08:45:25 PM) (4 of 4) [CSA-651/2011] filing the appeal on account of completely vague grounds for condonation of delay, has rejected the application seeking condonation and in the case of Gopi Chand Atreja (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court also dismissed the application on account of delay being not properly explained.
In view of the above discussion, the reasons indicated by the appellant seeking condonation of delay does not constitute sufficient cause for condoning the delay, the application is, therefore, rejected.
Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed as barred by limitation.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J 17-Rmathur/-
(Downloaded on 28/07/2020 at 08:45:25 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)