State of Haryana and Others vs Vinod Kumar

L.N. Mittal, J.—Defendants - State of Haryana and its officers have filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning judgment dated 31.01.2012 passed by learned District Judge, Rohtak, thereby dismissing the petitioners'' application for condonation of delay in filing first appeal and consequently, also thereby rejecting the first appeal as time barred. Suit filed by respondent-plaintiff, who is employee of defendants/petitioners, was decreed by the trial court, vide judgment and decree dated 30.03.2009 (Annexure P-1). Defendants filed first appeal against judgment and decree of the trial court and also moved application (Annexure P-2) for condonation of delay in filing the said appeal. The defendants alleged in the application that Legal Remembrancer (LR) and Secretary to Government Haryana opined that the case was not fit for filing of appeal. The said opinion was received in the office of defendant no. 3 on 14.05.2009, and thereafter, certified copies of judgment and decree of the trial court were collected by official of defendant no. 3 from District Attorney, Rohtak on 04.09.2009 and on examination thereof, it was found that 16 other helpers, who are senior to the plaintiff, would also claim similar benefit, resulting in financial loss to the defendants. Consequently, it was decided to file appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial court, resulting in delay of 236 days in filing the appeal.

The application was resisted by plaintiff-respondent alleging that there was no justification for condoning the aforesaid delay in filing the appeal.

Learned lower appellate court, vide impugned judgment dated 31.01.2012 (Annexure P-3), after recording evidence, found that there was no sufficient ground to condone the delay of 236 days in filing the first appeal. Feeling aggrieved, defendants have filed this revision petition to assail the said order.

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

Counsel for the parties reiterated their aforesaid versions.

I have carefully considered the matter.

There has been lapse on the part of defendants inasmuch as after receiving opinion of LR on 14.05.2009, nothing was done by the defendants for more than 3 1/2 months till 04.09.2009, when certified copies of judgment and decree of the trial court were collected from the District Attorney. However, since the case was examined again by the defendants and they thought it appropriate to file first appeal, in my considered opinion, ends of justice would be met if the aforesaid delay in filing the appeal is condoned on payment of costs. I have arrived at this conclusion because Courts are liberal in condoning the delay and reason for the same is that the appellant, by filing the appeal late, does not gain anything. In the instant case, no mala fide or oblique motive is attributed to the defendants for filing the appeal late. On the other hand, the delay in filing the first appeal has been explained, except the delay since 14.05.2009 till 04.09.2009 in collecting the copies of judgment and decree of the trial court from the District Attorney. For the said unexplained delay, the petitioners may be burdened with costs Resultantly, the instant revision petition is allowed. Impugned judgment (Annexure P-3) passed by learned District Judge, Rohtak is set aside. Application (Annexure P-2) filed by the petitioners in the lower appellate court for condonation of delay in filing the first appeal is allowed and delay of 236 days in filing the first appeal is condoned, subject to payment of Rs. 5,000/- as costs precedent. The appeal is restored to the files of the lower appellate court. Parties are directed to appear there on 26.08.2013. After payment of costs precedent, the appeal shall be decided on merits, in accordance with law.