Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana And Another vs Satbir Singh And Others on 23 April, 2014
Author: Rakesh Kumar Garg
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Garg
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.3744 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of decision: 23rd April, 2014
State of Haryana and another
Appellants
Versus
Satbir Singh and others
Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Ms. Aakanksha Sawhney, Dy. Advocate General, Haryana
for the appellants.
Mr. S.S. Walia, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 6.
RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. (ORAL)
This is defendants' second appeal challenging judgments and decrees of the Courts below whereby suit of the plaintiff- respondents for declaration and permanent injunction has been decreed.
There is a delay of 312 days in filing this appeal. Along with the appeal, an application i.e. CM No.11055-C of 2010 has been filed seeking condonation of such delay. In the aforesaid application, it has been stated that Legal Remembrancer and the Secretary to Govt. Singh Rattan Pal 2014.04.28 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court RSA No.3744 of 2010 (O&M) 2 of Haryana issued necessary instructions for filing the regular second appeal vide letter dated 15.09.2009 against the judgment and decree dated 05.08.2009 and thereafter, delay has been caused due to administrative exigencies which involve correspondence etc. It is a matter of record that after receiving instructions on 15.09.2009, appeal was filed on 17.05.2010 and thus, a considerable period was taken by the appellants which has not been explained and the same is being attributed to the administrative exigencies, which cannot be accepted as a good ground for condonation of delay.
Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that in a situation where there is no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides, the delay should be condoned so as to advance substantial justice. In support of her argument, learned counsel for the appellants has referred to a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in 'State of Rajasthan v. Bal Kishan Mathur' (2014) 1 Supreme Court Cases 592.
However, this Court is not inclined to accept the aforesaid arguments, as in the instant case the explanation furnished for delay in filing the appeal is wholly unacceptable.
It is useful to refer to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Office of the Chief Post Master General & ors. Versus Living Media India Ltd. & another' 2012(2) SCT 269 wherein it has been held that in an appeal filed on behalf of the State or its instrumentalities, unless a reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay is given and there was bona fide effort on the Singh Rattan Pal 2014.04.28 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court RSA No.3744 of 2010 (O&M) 3 part of the appellants, the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process, is not to be accepted.
In view thereof, I find no sufficient reasons to condone the delay. The prayer is rejected.
Since the delay has not been condoned, the appeal is dismissed as time barred.
(RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE April 23, 2014 rps Singh Rattan Pal 2014.04.28 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court