AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
7 paragraphs · 407 wordsJ.V. Gupta, C.J.
This petition is directed against the order of the Additional District Judge, Faridabad dated 28.5.1990 whereby the appeal filed on behalf of the plaintiffs was dismissed as barred by time and the application for condonation of delay was dismissed.
The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs on 16.1.1989. An application for obtaining the certified copy was filed on 25.10.1989. The certified copy was prepared on 26.10.1989 but the delivery was made on 21.11.1989. The appeal was filed on 27.11.1989 and, thus, it was delayed by 10 days. Along with the appeal an application for condonation of delay was filed which was contested on behalf of the defendant on the ground that no genuine cause had been pleaded by the plaintiffs for the condonation of delay. The learned Additional District Judge found that the ground taken by the plaintiffs that the lawyers were on strike on 18.11.1989 was no ground to condone the delay. Moreover, it has not been shown that it was beyond the control of the plaintiffs to file the appeal within limitation and that they had made all efforts but could not succeed due to the strike of the lawyers. According to the learned Additional District Judge, the strike of the lawyers is per se no ground for condonation of delay.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the decree of the trial Court holding that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit was illegal on the face of it, and, thus, on the facts and circumstances of the case it was a fit case for condonation of 10 days delay. In support of his contention he referred to Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another v. Mst. Katiji and others, AIR 1987 Supreme Court 1353.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners I find that on the facts of this case, the delay should have been condoned on payment of costs. It is true that strike of the lawyers per se is no ground for condonation of delay.
Consequently, this appeal succeeds and the impugned order is set aside and the application for condonation of delay is allowed on payment of Rs. 200/ as costs.
The parties are directed to appear before the Additional District Judge, Faridabad on 14.3.1991. The appeal be now decided on merits in accordance with law. The record of the case be sent back forth with.