Bathinda Development Authority and Others vs Balwinder Kaur and Others

Rakesh Garg, J.—There is a delay of 266 days in refiling this appeal. Along with the appeal, an application, i.e. CM No. 6774-C of 2013, has been filed for condonation of the aforesaid delay. The application reads as under:

"That the cited appeal was preferred in time.

However, the true typed copy of the judgment of the Ld. Trial Court was not available. The appellants deputed its staff to get the copy of the same, but the same was not supplied as the file was not available. As such, the time was consumed for the said purpose. The appellants have been pursuing the matter with due diligence and all bonafides. However, there is unintentional delay of 266 days in re-filing the appeal which is neither willful nor deliberate, but beyond the control of the appellants."

In support of this application, an affidavit of Mr. Harjeet Singh Sandhu, Estate Officer, Bathinda Development Authority, Bathinda has been filed. However, there is nothing on record to support the submissions made in this application. The record shows that the appeal was filed initially on 28.03.2012 within limitation period, however, the office raised various objections and returned the appeal, which was re-filed on 02.07.2012. Still on scrutiny the Registry found further defects and thus, by raising objections the appeal was again returned and the same was re-filed on 30.04.2013 along with certified copy of the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Further perusal of the record shows that certified copy of the judgment and decree of the trial Court was applied by the appellants'' counsel on 04.04.2013 and the same was prepared on 16.04.2013.

At this stage, it may further be noticed that objections with regard to certified copy of the judgment and decree of the trial Court was raised as early as on 23.06.2012. Still the appellants have consumed time from 24.06.2012 upto 03.04.2013 without doing anything and the certified copy was applied only on 04.04.2013.

There is nothing on record to show any reason which obstructed the appellants from applying for the certified copy of the judgment and decree of the trial Court earlier to 04.04.2013. In view thereof, the affidavit filed before this Court to condone the delay is false. Thus, the appellants were not pursuing the matter with due diligence and all bonafides.

At this stage, it is apt to notice that Hon''ble the Supreme Court, in Office of The Chief Post Master General and Others Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Another, has 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 bonafide effort on the 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 this view of the matter, this Court finds no merit in the application for condonation of delay and the same is hereby rejected.

Since delay in re-filing the appeal has not been condoned, the appeal is also dismissed being barred by limitation.