Punjab-Haryana High Court
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited vs Smt. Jiwan Rani And Others on 10 December, 2012
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.3856 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of decision:10.12.2012
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Patiala ....Petitioner
versus
Smt. Jiwan Rani and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
----
Present: Mr. Amit Aggarwal, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. A.K. Walia, Advocate,
for the respondents.
----
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ? No.
2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No.
----
K.Kannan, J.(Oral)
1. The civil revision is against the dismissal of an application for condoning the delay of 200 and odd days in filing the appeal. Reason given for the delay was that they got a certified copy of the judgment and the decree only belatedly since the counsel had made it available to them only later and, therefore, the delay became inevitable. The counsel for the respondents would state that the decree has already been given effect to and all the benefits have Civil Revision No.3856 of 2012 (O&M) -2- also been given to the respondents without reserving any right to recall the same, if there was a reversal in the decision in the appeal. It is the further contention that even the cause for delay, as given, is not correct and that in April, 2010 itself, the pension was calculated and paid to the respondents which would not have been done if they did not know about the decree passed by the Court.
2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would explain that the pension papers were processed by another department and the dealing assistant, who was the incharge of the case himself, was not aware of such proceedings initiated in yet another department.
3. Where a right of first appeal is statutorily protected, the compliance with the decree and the payment released, ought not to be taken as a circumstance that the party was forsaking his right to challenge the correctness of the decree. There is no estoppel against a statutory right given and if there should be a modification or change of decision in appellate forum, a right to secure restitution in terms of Section 144 CPC cannot be lost. I will also not apply an extracting standard of proof in a situation where an appeal is by a public corporation and it is just as well likely that there are several persons incharge for various functions and the department that finalizes pension may not have communicated with the person who is incharge of the relevant file for preferring the appeal. I would Civil Revision No.3856 of 2012 (O&M) -3- uphold the contention of the petitioner that a case is made out for condoning the delay.
4. The order passed already is set aside and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The appellate Court shall register the appeal and dispose of the same in accordance with law.
5. The appeal is allowed but would allow for costs of ` 5,000/- to be paid to the respondents by the revision petitioner as a recompense for securing the benefit of condonation of delay. The receipt for payment shall be produced before the Court before the case is listed for hearing of appeal.
(K.KANNAN) JUDGE 10.12.2012 sanjeev