Srinagar Development Authority Vs. M.H. Leharwal & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 4269 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 18579/1999)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 18579/1999)
Petitioner: Srinagar Development Authority
Respondent: M.H. Leharwal & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 4269 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 18579/1999)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 18579/1999)
Judges: K.T. THOMAS & R.P. SETHI, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jul 28, 2000
Head Note:
LIMITATION / PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Limitation Act, 1963
Section 5 – Condonation – Delay of 275 days – Certified copy applied on 22.9.98 – Copy supplied on 13.4.99 – Discussion with Counsel for filing LPA – Counter claim that copy was applied on 28.5.93 and supplied in June 1998 – Nothing to support – Delay due to laches on part of department. Held that in the interest of justice, delay is condoned on payment of compensation of Rs. 2000 to each of the four respondents.
(Paras 1, 2)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted. The impugned order is one of refusing to condone the delay in filing Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. There was a delay of 275 days in filing the appeal before the Division Bench. The reason stated by way of explanation was that the copy was applied on 22.9.1998 and the certified copy was delivered on 13.4.99. After obtaining certified copy the matter was discussed with the Counsel for the department for filing the LPA. Learned senior Counsel for the respondent submits that, as a matter of fact, certified copy was applied for on 28.5.1998 and a copy was delivered in June 1998. There is nothing to show that the application was made for certified copy on 28.5.98. We also noticed that the delay had occasioned on account of laches on the part of the appellant. At the same time a decision by the Division Bench on merits is necessary in the interest of justice. To compensate the respondent for the laches, the appellant can be put to terms.
2. We allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and condone the delay in filing the LPA on condition that the appellant shall pay Rs. 2000/- each to the four respondents. The amount shall be deposited with the High Court within four weeks from today or paid to the Counsel for the respondent nos. 1-4 in this Court within the said time. If the amount is not paid the appellant will forfeit the benefit granted to him in this judgment.
1. Leave granted. The impugned order is one of refusing to condone the delay in filing Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. There was a delay of 275 days in filing the appeal before the Division Bench. The reason stated by way of explanation was that the copy was applied on 22.9.1998 and the certified copy was delivered on 13.4.99. After obtaining certified copy the matter was discussed with the Counsel for the department for filing the LPA. Learned senior Counsel for the respondent submits that, as a matter of fact, certified copy was applied for on 28.5.1998 and a copy was delivered in June 1998. There is nothing to show that the application was made for certified copy on 28.5.98. We also noticed that the delay had occasioned on account of laches on the part of the appellant. At the same time a decision by the Division Bench on merits is necessary in the interest of justice. To compensate the respondent for the laches, the appellant can be put to terms.
2. We allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and condone the delay in filing the LPA on condition that the appellant shall pay Rs. 2000/- each to the four respondents. The amount shall be deposited with the High Court within four weeks from today or paid to the Counsel for the respondent nos. 1-4 in this Court within the said time. If the amount is not paid the appellant will forfeit the benefit granted to him in this judgment.
