In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
CM No. 25946-CII of 2008 and
Civil Revision No. 3530 of 2004
Date of decision: March 30, 2009
Union of India and others
.. Petitioners
Vs.
Udai Vir Gupta and others
.. Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal
Present: None for Union of India.
Mr. Vishal Garg, Advocate for the respondents
A.N. Jindal, J
It is often seen that none appears in this court on behalf of
Union of India, therefore, I am left with no option but decide the case with
the assistance of the learned counsel for the respondent.
This revision petition is directed against the order dated
4.3.2004 passed by the learned additional District Judge, Bathinda,
dismissing the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
The judgment in this case was passed on 22.2.2000 and the certified copy of
the judgment was applied on 1.3.2000 and the same was delivered on
27.3.2000. The appeal was preferred in the court on 19.11.2000. The plea
set up by the petitioner is that the certified copy of the judgment and decree
was misplaced, as a result of which delay occured. It was only in the first
week of September, 2001, when the certified copy of the judgment and
decree was found during the search of some other documents. Thereafter, it
took sometime to procure the other connected documents, which were
delivered to the petitioner on 28.9.2001. Thereafter, the brief was handed
over to Mr. Mithu Ram Gupta, Advocate Additional Standing Counsel for
Union of India on 11.10.2001, who preferred the appeal on 19.11.2001.
The trial court while observing that there were no sufficient grounds to
condone the delay, dismissed application
.
Civil Revision No. 3530 of 2004 -2-
***
Heard.
At the motion stage, this Court issued notice of motion while
observing as under :-
“……. Mr. Guglani, learned counsel for the petitioner, states
that the petitioner is not aggrieved against the release of the
FDRs lying deposited in the Bank but it is primarily aggrieved
against the entitlement of Uday Veer Gupta as a contractor in
place of respondent No.2. It is prayed that proper procedure
has to be followed before enlisting a contractor…….”
From the perusal of the order, one thing is very much clear that
though delay occured due to the misplacing of the judgment and the
advocate also took time for procuring the certified copies of the other
documents, therefore, it cannot be said to be intentional delay. The
petitioners were not to be benefited by filing delayed appeal. The lis
involves a huge amount, therefore, the appellate court ought to have
adjudicated the lis after hearing both the parties. At the same time, the
court while condoning the delay should have liberal approach. Every day
delay need not to be explained. That apart, in view of the goodwill gesture
shown by the Union of India, vide order dated 29.7.2004, they have no
objection to the release of the FDRs, there should have been no difficulty in
adjudicating the issue. As such, it is observed that there are sufficient
grounds to condone the delay.
Resultantly, I accept the petition, set aside the impugned order
and restore the appeal while directing that the FDRs lying deposited in the
Punjab National Bank, Bathinda would be released to the respondent subject
to furnishing adequate security for restitution in case the appeal is decided
against them. The respondents are directed to appear before the Appellate
Court on 30.4.2009. Union of India be informed accordingly.
March 30, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge