Punjab-Haryana High Court
Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Ltd vs M/S Star Wire (India) Ltd on 31 October, 2012
Author: L. N. Mittal
Bench: L. N. Mittal
R. S. A. No. 4360 of 2012 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Case No. : R. S. A. No. 4360 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision : October 31, 2012
Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Ltd.
and others .... Appellants
Vs.
M/s Star Wire (India) Ltd. .... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL
* * *
Present : Mr. Kartar Singh Malik, Advocate
for the applicants/appellants.
Mr. Kuldip Attri, SDO of appellants also in person.
* * *
L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :
C. M. No. 12165-C of 2012 :
This is application by appellants for condonation of delay of 368 days in filing the appeal. It is alleged in the application that after decision of first appeal by the lower appellate court on 07.06.2011, copy of judgment and decree thereof was applied for on 15.07.2011 and prepared on 16.07.2011 and received by the appellants on 18.07.2011. The copy was sent to Legal Remembrancer (LR) of the appellants for opinion for filing second appeal, vide letter dated 25.07.2011. LR advised filing of second R. S. A. No. 4360 of 2012 (O&M) 2 appeal. Instructions for filing the second appeal were received by the appellants on 12.07.2012. Thereafter, certified copy of judgment and decree of the trial court was applied for on 09.08.2012 and received on 21.08.2012.
In this process, there has been delay of 368 days in filing the appeal.
I have heard counsel for the applicants/appellants and perused the case file.
Counsel for the applicants/appellants reiterated the aforesaid version contained in the application.
I have carefully considered the matter.
Even taking the aforesaid averments at face value, no ground, much less sufficient ground, for condoning the long and inordinate delay of more than one year in filing the appeal is made out. There is no explanation why copy of judgment and decree of the lower appellate court was not applied for immediately or within 2-3 days after the judgment was pronounced and was rather applied for after 5-6 weeks. There is also no explanation whatsoever for the delay of almost one year since July 2011 till July 2012 regarding opinion and instructions for filing second appeal in the lis. It has simply been alleged that the case was sent to LR for opinion vide letter dated 25.07.2011 and instructions for filing appeal were received on 12.07.2012. Nothing has been mentioned in the application about the aforesaid period of one year. It is also not mentioned in the application as to who issued the instructions and to whom for filing the appeal. Even after R. S. A. No. 4360 of 2012 (O&M) 3 receiving instructions, copy of judgment and decree of the trial court was not applied for immediately. Even after receiving the said copy on 21.08.2012, the appeal was not filed promptly, but was filed on 10.09.2012.
It is thus apparent that even assuming the averments made in the application to be correct at face value, there is no ground, much less sufficient ground, to condone the long delay of 368 days in filing the appeal. The application is meritless and deserves to be dismissed.
It may be mentioned that on the preceding date of hearing, case was adjourned for today to find out if the judgments of the courts below, whereby some sales instructions of the appellants have been held to be null and void etc. by the courts below, would have effect on the instant lis only or would have wide ranging effect on the revenues of the appellants pertaining to other similarly situated persons. Counsel for the appellants, after seeking instructions from expert of the appellants, states that the judgments of the courts below would not have effect on any other entity except the respondent-plaintiff.
For the reasons aforesaid, the instant application is dismissed. Main Appeal :
Dismissed as time barred.
October 31, 2012 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE