District Manager, I.M.L. Depot, A.P. Beverages Corporation, A.P. Vs. K. Nagaraju
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 2328 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 9449 of 1999)
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 9449 of 1999)
Petitioner: District Manager, I.M.L. Depot, A.P. Beverages Corporation, A.P.
Respondent: K. Nagaraju
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 2328 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 9449 of 1999)
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 9449 of 1999)
Judges: S.B. MAJMUDAR & Y.K. SABHARWAL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 31, 2000
Head Note:
LIMITATION
Limitation Act, 1963
Section 5 with Constitution – Article 136 – Writ appeal – Delay of 13 days from orders on review petition – Delay properly explained as review filed. Held that delay deserved to be condoned. Delay condoned and writ appeal restored.
(Paras 4, 5)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties finally in this appeal.
3. The short question on which
notice was issued was to the effect
that the respondent shall show cause why the delay in filing the writ appeal should not be condoned by excluding
the time taken in filing the review
proceedings before the learned Single Judge.
4. It is clear that the writ appeal was filed against the order of the learned Single Judge and it was prima facie time barred. However, the delay in filing the writ appeal was properly explained by submitting that in the meantime review proceedings were filed before the learned Single Judge and the review proceedings were disposed of on 15th September, 1998. Thereafter, the writ appeal was filed which was delayed by 13 days from the date of the order passed in review petition.
5. In our view, the said delay deserved to be condoned in the interest of justice. In fact the High Court thought it fit not to condone the delay in filing the writ appeal on an assumption that direct appeal was filed against judgment of the learned Single Judge, without considering the fact that in the meantime a review petition was filed which was disposed of. Consequently, the delay in filing the writ appeal is condoned and the civil appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. Writ Appeal No. 114 of 1999 is restored to the file of the High Court with a request to re-decide the same on merits in accordance with law.
6. We express no opinion on the merits of the controversy between the parties.
7. No costs.
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties finally in this appeal.
3. The short question on which
notice was issued was to the effect
that the respondent shall show cause why the delay in filing the writ appeal should not be condoned by excluding
the time taken in filing the review
proceedings before the learned Single Judge.
4. It is clear that the writ appeal was filed against the order of the learned Single Judge and it was prima facie time barred. However, the delay in filing the writ appeal was properly explained by submitting that in the meantime review proceedings were filed before the learned Single Judge and the review proceedings were disposed of on 15th September, 1998. Thereafter, the writ appeal was filed which was delayed by 13 days from the date of the order passed in review petition.
5. In our view, the said delay deserved to be condoned in the interest of justice. In fact the High Court thought it fit not to condone the delay in filing the writ appeal on an assumption that direct appeal was filed against judgment of the learned Single Judge, without considering the fact that in the meantime a review petition was filed which was disposed of. Consequently, the delay in filing the writ appeal is condoned and the civil appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. Writ Appeal No. 114 of 1999 is restored to the file of the High Court with a request to re-decide the same on merits in accordance with law.
6. We express no opinion on the merits of the controversy between the parties.
7. No costs.
