Jai Pal Singh & Ors. Vs. Chief Settlement Commnr. & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 488 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P (C) No.16421 of 1998)
(Arising out of S.L.P (C) No.16421 of 1998)
Petitioner: Jai Pal Singh & Ors.
Respondent: Chief Settlement Commnr. & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 488 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P (C) No.16421 of 1998)
(Arising out of S.L.P (C) No.16421 of 1998)
Judges: S.P. BHARUCHA, SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI & M.B. SHAH, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 21, 2000
Head Note:
CONSTITUTION
Article 136 – Delay & laches – Letters Patent Appeal – Dismissal on grounds of delay of 170 days – Explanation of mother’s illness and expenses incurred thereon. Held that delay could have been condoned. Same condoned and LPA restored to High Court for deci-sion on merits.
(Para 4, 5)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The notice on the special leave petition stated that the matter might be disposed of at this stage by an order restoring the appeal to the file of the High Court to be heard and dis-posed of on merits, condoning the delay in filing it.
3. The delay was of about 170 days. The explanation relates to the illness of the mother of the appellants and the expenses incurred thereon. The High Court took the view that the delay had not been satisfactorily explained. It added that even on merits it did not find any ground to interfere. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that all the grounds in the special leave petition were directed to the merits and there was no averment in regard to the refusal to condone the delay.
4. We do not think that, in the circumstances, that can be a reason to decline to pass the order that seems to us appro-priate. We think that the appropriate course that the High Court should have passed and which we propose to do, was to condone the delay and make an order of costs in favour of the respondents.
5. Accordingly, the civil appeal is allowed. The order under appeal is set aside. Delay in filing the appeal before the High Court is condoned and the appeal (L.P.A.No. 202 of 1997) is re-stored to the file of the High Court to be heard and disposed of on merits.
6. The appellants shall pay to the respondents the costs of the appeal, quantified at Rupees five hundred only.
1. Leave granted.
2. The notice on the special leave petition stated that the matter might be disposed of at this stage by an order restoring the appeal to the file of the High Court to be heard and dis-posed of on merits, condoning the delay in filing it.
3. The delay was of about 170 days. The explanation relates to the illness of the mother of the appellants and the expenses incurred thereon. The High Court took the view that the delay had not been satisfactorily explained. It added that even on merits it did not find any ground to interfere. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that all the grounds in the special leave petition were directed to the merits and there was no averment in regard to the refusal to condone the delay.
4. We do not think that, in the circumstances, that can be a reason to decline to pass the order that seems to us appro-priate. We think that the appropriate course that the High Court should have passed and which we propose to do, was to condone the delay and make an order of costs in favour of the respondents.
5. Accordingly, the civil appeal is allowed. The order under appeal is set aside. Delay in filing the appeal before the High Court is condoned and the appeal (L.P.A.No. 202 of 1997) is re-stored to the file of the High Court to be heard and disposed of on merits.
6. The appellants shall pay to the respondents the costs of the appeal, quantified at Rupees five hundred only.
