Patna High Court - Orders
Md. Habib Ansari @ Habib Mian & Ors. vs Khairu Nisa on 17 June, 2014
Author: Mungeshwar Sahoo
Bench: Mungeshwar Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
First Appeal No.25 of 2013
======================================================
Md. Habib Ansari @ Habib Mian & Ors.
.... .... Appellant/s
Versus
Khairu Nisa
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Abhishek
For the Respondent/s : Mr.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR
SAHOO
ORAL ORDER
9 17-06-20141. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel on behalf of the sole respondent on interlocutory application No.7581 of 2013.
2. This is a limitation application filed by the appellant praying for condoning the delay of about 6 years in filing the First Appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Award was passed by the Lok Adalat wherein the appellant was not made party, therefore, he challenged the Award by filing title suit No.32 of 2006 on the ground that the Award passed by the Lok Adalat is fraudulently obtained by the parties thereto. The plaint was rejected by the trial Court on the ground that the suit 2 Patna High Court FA No.25 of 2013 (9) dt.17-06-2014 2/3 filed by the appellant is barred by the Legal Service Authority Act, 1987 and, therefore, the appellant filed C.W.J.C. No.10352 of 2007 against the order passed by the trial Court. After notice, the respondent appeared and thereafter by terms of order dated 04.01.2013, the High Court granted permission to the appellant to withdraw the writ application with liberty to move appropriate appeal. Therefore, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant. The learned counsel further submitted that the delay is not intentionally rather the appellant was prosecuting his grievance before a wrong forum and, therefore, the delay may be condoned.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent vehemently objected the condonation of delay and submitted that the filing of the writ application against the order passed by the Civil Court itself is not bonafide and if it is not bonafide then there is no explanation of condone the delay of about 6 years.
4. Perused the interlocutory application. The order passed by the High Court in C.W.J.C. No.10352 of 2007 has been annexed as Annexure '1'. It appears that the appellants had filed the said writ against the order passed by the Civil Court and after 3 Patna High Court FA No.25 of 2013 (9) dt.17-06-2014 3/3 some argument on 04.01.2013 got it withdrawn with liberty to file the present appeal and thereafter, the present appeal has been filed. It appears that the appellants were prosecuting bonafidely before the wrong forum. Accordingly, the delay in filing the present appeal is condoned. The interlocutory application thus stand allowed.
(Mungeshwar Sahoo, J) Sanjeev/-
U T