SHRI JEET RAM SON OF KANSIA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND PO BALDEHAN, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SHIMLA, H.P. Vs. SHRI TEK SINGH SON OF SHRI MANGAN SINGH THROUGH HIS LRS. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment as common set of facts are involved and common questions of law are to be determined. Learned District Judge, disposed of Civil Appeal No. 38 -S/13 of 2008/06, title Jeet Ram versus Tek Singh preferred by the present appellant against the judgment of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Court No. 4, Shimla passed in civil Suit No. 26/1 of 1999/95, whereby the application for restoration of the suit instituted by Jeet Ram was dismissed on 22.2.2006, Civil Appeal No. 37 -S/13 of 2008/06, title Jeet Ram versus Tek Singh was instituted against the judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 4, Shimla on 4.5.2006 in Counter Claim No. 76/1 of 2001/95 in Civil Suit No. 26/1 of 1999/95 allowing a part of the counter claim instituted by respondent Tek Singh, challenging its legality and ultimate order passed, Cross objections No. 77 -S/13 of 09/07 were instituted by Tek Singh before the learned District Judge under the provisions of Order 41, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure ( CPC for short) against the judgment and decree dated 4.5.2006 in the same civil suit as instituted by the appellant/plaintiff Jeet Ram, wherein a part of the counter claim was allowed. The prayer of Tek Singh was for grant of the entire claim put forth in the counter claim. Two applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act which were registered as Civil Appeal No. 42 -S/6 of 2008/07, titled Jeet Ram versus Tek Singh and Civil Appeal No. 4 -S/6 of 2009/06, title Jeet Ram versus Tek Singh were instituted respectively by plaintiff/appellant and defendant/cross -objector praying that the delay in instituting respective appeals and claims be condoned in the interest of justice. A number of grounds were taken both by the appellant and the respondent herein in support of their respective submissions that the delay in instituting the proceedings in appeal/counter claim before the learned Appellate Court was bona fide and required to be condoned and thereafter the case be proceeded with in accordance with law.

(2.) THE learned District Judge dismissed both the appeal as also the cross objections after dismissing both the applications instituted under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. I find from the judgment that the learned District Judge has been extremely terse in the order and has not given any consideration to the applications instituted both by the appellant and the respondent herein in dismissing their respective applications and no consideration was given on merits. So far as the law governing condonation of delay in instituting limitation applications is concerned, the Supreme Court in Balwant Singh (Dead) versus Jagdish Singh and others, : (2010)8 SCC 685 has considered the law successively laying down the principles in detail and holding that it is not length of delay but the quality of the delay which offered. Without adverting to the entire case law as discussed in Balwant Singh's case (supra), the Supreme Court holds:

(3.) IT was these principles which are required to be applied by the learned Appellate Court considering the respective applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act instituted by both the parties.