Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KAUR SINGH versus PEPSU ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANO

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Kaur Singh v. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and ano - CR-310-2004 [2006] RD-P&H 973 (20 February 2006)

C.R. No. 310 of 2004. (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

C.R. No. 310 of 2004.

Date of Decision:20.2.2006

Kaur Singh ...Petitioner.

Versus

Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and another. ...Respondents.

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta.

Present: Shri D.D. Bansal, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

Shri R.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate,

for the respondents.

JUDGMENT

The plaintiff is in revision petition aggrieved against the order passed by the learned First Appellate Court on 5.8.2003, whereby delay of eight months in filing of appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court was not condoned.

The plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration challenging the order dated 21.7.1998, whereby the defendants stopped his two annual increments. The said suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court on 19.9.2001. An appeal against the said judgment and decree was filed along with an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal on the ground that his counsel suggested him not to come on hearings of the case and whenever he feels any need, he will call him. Therefore, the decision of the suit was not known to him.

The learned first Appellate Court found that the petitioner has not shown any sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The petitioner is C.R. No. 310 of 2004. (2)

working as conductor and that he has taken only oral plea. Thus, it was found that there does not exist any sufficient cause to seek condonation of delay. The reasoning given by the learned first Appellate Court, is wholly unjustified and defeats the cause of justice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy 1999(1) Civil Court Cases 12 (SC) has held that delay in filing the appeal should not be examined from a pedantic point of view but with a view whether any benefit is sought to be raised by the suitor. Since the appeal was directed against the judgment and decree, whereby his suit was dismissed, no benefit could accrue to the plaintiff by filing the appeal belatedly.

Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 5.8.2003 passed by the learned first Appellate Court is set aside and delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The learned first Appellate Court is directed to decide the appeal in accordance with law.

Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned first Appellate Court on 27.3.2006.

20.2.2006 (Hemant Gupta)

ds Judge


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.