STATE OF J&K Vs. AB REHMAN WANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPLICATION for condonation of delay has been submitted with prayer to condone the delay of one year and 23 days on the main grounds that the applicants -appellants could not file the appeal in time because the counsel for appellants informed them about the judgment and decree dated 18.4.1998 in the last week of July, 1998 and thereafter it took some time for them to obtain the copy of the decree and judgment. The matter was thereafter referred to law and sericulture departments for clearance on the administrative side which took some more time and ultimately further delay was caused due to annual Darbar Move and in these circumstances the delay was not deliberate and, as such, the delay be condoned. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant -appellants has submitted that since the delay was caused in completing the official formalities and on account of negligence of the counsel to inform the appellants about the date of announcement of judgment, therefore, the delay in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in AIR 2000 SC 2306 be condoned.

(3.) THE submission of learned counsel for the applicant -appellants to condone the delay cannot be permitted for multiple reasons. The fact that there is a general tendency of the functionaries of the State to sleep over their rights, in an indolent manner, will not entitle them to the indulgence of the court while dealing with applications for condonation of delay. If the trend of the State functionaries demonstrating indifferent attitude and indilligence as a litigant is encouraged, avoidable delay will be caused in the disposal of cases besides causing prejudice to other side. The Apex Court in Judgment Today 1998 Vol. 7 SC 21 has observed that the period of limitation cannot be extended and delay condoned only on equitable grounds. In AIR 1999 Raj. 248 it has been held that where sufficient cause is not shown, delay may not be condoned. The Supreme Court has also observed that where the limitation is allowed to be passed without taking proper care, the explanation must be for the period pertaining to the date of limitation. This view has been held in AIR 1998 SC 733.