MADANPAL Vs. VITH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MEERUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - Against the decree passed in Original Suit No. 513 of 1988 by Munsif City, Meerut, the petitioner preferred a time barred appeal along with an application under Sec. 5, Limitation Act, which was rejected by VIth Additional District Judge on 21.5.1994. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing of the aforesaid order. As the parties have exchanged affidavits the writ petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage.

(2.) The impugned order shows that the suit was decided by the learned Munsif on 22.4.1993 and the appeal was preferred on 23.8.1993. The explanation offered by the petitioner in the application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act was that he was ill from 19.5.1993 to 31.8.1993 and was unable to move. Learned District Judge was of the opinion that Dr. R.S. Sharma, under whom the petitioner was getting treatment was not a specialist, and the fact that the petitioner did not get himself treated from a specialist showed that he was not seriously ill for such a long period. Disbelieving the ground of illness taken by the petitioner in his affidavit which was filed in support of the application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, the same was rejected by the impugned order.

(3.) The facts mentioned in the impugned order show that after the judgment was delivered by the learned Munsif on 22.4.1993, the petitioner gave an application for obtaining certificate of the judgment and decree on 7.5.1993 and the same was prepared on 21.5.1993. A period of fifteen days was, thus, spent in the preparation of the certified copy of the judgment and decree. Since the judgment of the trial Court was pronounced on 22.4.1993 the limitation for filing the appeal after taking into consideration the period spent in preparation of the certified copy would expire on 6.6.1993, i.e. during summer vacation. The appeal could, therefore, be filed on the reopening day in July, 1993. The learned Additional District Judge has, therefore, erred in proceeding on the basis that the limitation for filing the appeal expired on 22.5.1993 and the petitioner had to explain the delay from the said date till 23.8.1993, i.e. for about three months. In his affidavit the petitioner said that he was suffering from Typhoid and cirhosis of liver for which he was undergoing treatment from Dr. R.S. Sharma. The certificate issued by Dr. R.S. Sharma was also filed. The mere fact that the petitioner did not get himself treated from a specialist can be no ground for disbelieving the certificate issued by Dr. Sharma or the affidavit filed by the petitioner. It depends upon one's own thinking and financial conditions whether to consult a specialist or not. It is quite possible that the petitioner had confidence and faith in Dr. Sharma and therefore, he did not consult a specialist for his treatment. Therefore, the reason given by the learned Additional District Judge for discarding the ground given in support of the application under Sec. 5, Limitation Act does not appear to be justified.