Amaresh Ku.Singh, J. - (1.) Heard the arguments regarding the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
(2.) According to the office report, there is 47 days' delay in filing the appeal. The award was made by the M.A.C.T. on 21.12.1996. The appeal was filed on 23.5.1997. In the affidavit tiled by Shri M.L. Mangala it is stated that the application for the copy of the judgment was filed on 21.12.1996. The copy of the judgment was ready on 4.1.1997 and was received by the local Advocate of the appellant at Jalore on 15.1.1997. It is further stated in the affidavit that on 16.1.1997, the copy was forwarded to the appellant's Divisional Office at Jodhpur and it was received in that office'on 17.1.1997. The appellant thereafter sought opinion of its Advocate and the opinion of the Advocate was given on 21.1.1997. The Divisional Office received the opinion of the Advocate on 22.1.1997 and after completing necessary official formalities sent the file to Regional Office, Jaipur on 27.1.1997 for permission to file the appeal.
(3.) After about one month, Regional Office, Jaipur sent a letter to the Divisional Office, Jodhpur to give a clear-cut recommendation and pointed out that there should be some basis for such recommendation. Instead of receiving the letter from the Regional Office, no reply was made and on 17.3.1997, a D.O. letter was addressed by the Divisional Office, Jodhpur to the Deputy Manager, Legal Cell Office to Jaipur make a pointed reference to the categorical opinion of the Counsels and making a categorical recommendation to allow the filing of the appeal in the High Court. It was also pointed out in that letter that the instruction should be sent as early as possible before 31.3.1997. It is also stated in the affi- davit that on 31.3.1997 at about 5:00 p.m. a telephonic request was made for the needful. However, the office did not reply and on 9.4.1997 an urgent D.O. letter was again addressed to Shri P.C. Agarwal requesting him to send necessary instructions and another D.O. letter was sent on 2.5.1997. There is nothing to indicate why there was a delay in sending the reply of the D.O. letter.;