ORDER
1. There is 838 days delay in
representing the above revision. The verified petition is in a cyclostyled form and only Appeal SR number and number of days is filled in the blanks. It reads:
“Verified Petition
It is submitted that the above appeal (Sr. 13.046/95) was returned by the Registry of High Court with certain objections. Due to heavy rush of work and non-availability of material required, the same could not represented in time. Thus, there is some delay in representing the above appeal, which is neither wilful nor deliberate.
Hence, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to condone the delay of (838) days in representing the above appeal and pass such other and further orders as this Hon’ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
The above facts are true and correct.
Sd/- xx
Government Pleader for
Land Ceiling.”
Hyderabad:
Dated:
According to the learned Government Pleader for Land Ceiling who has verified the petition, 838 days delay is ‘some delay’. This is totally unsatisfactory way of explaining the enormous delay of 838 days and there is absolutely no cause shown to condone the enormous delay of 838 days, in almost similar facts-situation, the Division Bench of this Court in Chief Engineer, R&B v. R.K. Engineers, (DB) was pleased to observe thus:
“It appears there is a delay of 328 days in the matter of re-presentation of the appeal. Be it noted that there is also a delay of 39 days in the matter of filing of the appeal. Assuming we accept the submission of the learned Advocate appearing in support of the appeal and condone the delay of 39 days, but there is no explanation whatsoever in regard to the delay of 328 days for representation of the appeal. The appeal was presented after some delay before the Department, The Department returned the same by reason of certain defects therein. The explanation offered is that there was heavy rush in the Department and by reason of non-availability of the materials, the defects could not be cured within 328 days. This is not an acceptable explanation. The Limitation Act precribes certain period of limitation and on the expiry of which the right of appeal stands extinguished and by reason wherefor, the other party stands vested with some right which cannot be lightly interfered with by die Law Court. The Court shall have to be cautious in its approach since the issue involves divestation of some rights conferred
on to a party by the statute and unless there are cogent reasons therefor, question of consideration of delay does not and cannot arise. It is true that some leniency may be permitted in particular facts and circumstances, but that, however, does not and cannot mean and imply a casual approach in dealing with such a situation. There ought to exist some such plea so as to enable the Court to use its discretion in considering the delay. Unfortunately, there exists no reason whatsoever for such condonation.”
2. In the result C.M.P. is dismissed. Consequently C.R.P. also stands dismissed. No costs.