STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. HOSHIAR SINGH
LAWS(HPH)-1997-3-33
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Decided on March 06,1997

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Appellant
VERSUS
HOSHIAR SINGH Respondents




JUDGEMENT

ARUN KUMAR GOEL,J. - (1.)Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.)Shri Chauhan has submitted that in this case proposal for filing the appeal was sent to Home department by the District Magistrate, Una and who in turn forwarded the case to Law Department for its opinion and it was only on 6th April, 1996 that the file was received back with the necessary opinion of the Law Department. Thereafter the file was sent to the office of learned Advocate General for filing the appeal and after preparing and finalizing the grounds of appeal, the same was filed in this Court on 20th April, 1996. Thus, according to Shri Chauhan, the delay in filing the appeal deserves to be condoned which was neither willful nor intentional. Shri Chauhan has further urged that in the event of delay being condoned, the only benefit the appellant would derive is that this case would be heard on merits and not any other benefit. Besides this, Shri Chauhan urged that the State did not gain to file anything by filing a time barred appeal. Further when the grant of substantial justice is pitted against defeating the legitimate claim on technical pleas like limitation, the latter would give way to the former. It was also submitted that the Court would not throw out the case of a party without doing substantial justice as the courts are respected for setting the rights of parties at rest. Lastly, it was urged that the transaction of business of government being done leisurely by officials of the State, who have no interest or evince personal interest at different levels, therefore, the insistence upon explaining every days delay may not be insisted upon and in case it is so done, it will be against public policy and resulting failure of justice. In support of present application, Shri Chauhan pointed out mat the insistence by the courts for explaining each dayss delay is out -dated and the intention of the court should be to adjudicate and finally set at rest the controversy in a Us on its merits rather than rejecting the claim on technical please like limitation.
(3.)On the other hand, Shri Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently urged while controverting the submissions made on behalf of the State that for all intents and purposes, this appeal shall be deemed to have been filed on 18th November, 1996 when the application for condonation of delay was filed, by the appellant -State and further there is no explanation of delay, and the so called explanation does not spell out any cause much less a sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the present appeal.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.