JUDGMENT - (1) This is a second appeal. It was filed on June 17, 1966. Objections were notified on Aug, 17, 1966. Two of the objections were that appeal was beyond time by seven days and the appeal was not properly stamped.

(2) The application for condonation of delay in the filing of the appeal was filed on October 24, 1966, two months after it was notified. But none of the objections in the second appeal were removed. The Registrar, therefore, refused registration on November 18, 1966. Then on 78th day an application was filed saying that objections were removed and the appeal be registered, being application No. 910/1966. But even then the required court fee on the appeal was not paid. The office re-examined this matter and pointed out that court-fee was not paid. But the said application, curiously enough, it was not stated that the court-fee was not paid and that time be granted for payment of court-fees. Though financial difficulty of the appellant was stated to be the cause for non-removal of objections, in the said application, affidavit was not filed along with the application.

(3) Additional Court-fees were paid on June 26, 1967 with an application that the delay be condoned. This application being application No. 1339 is made on June 28, 1967.

(4) Such matters are not by any means unusual. The appellate side rules of the High Court lay down in what manner an appeal or application is to be filed making detailed provisions. The rules which permit incomplete filing are intended for meeting unforeseen contingencies. Instead, they are used as privileges. Almost every matter is filed incomplete in that (a) it is filed on eight annas stamp even where fixed stamp is payable, (b) care is not taken in correcting memo, very often sentences are left incomplete and do not make sense. (c) the names of the parties are not correctly shown, (d) the memo and/ or the Vakalatnama are not signed. (e) proper accompaniments are not filed, and (f) the claim is not stated, and so on. Even after the defects are pointed for long time nothing is done. The litigants and the Advocates apparently also think that they are privileged to remove one objection at a time and the result is the office has to examine the same matter over and over again. These "privileges" are exercised so far that there are hardly any appeals filed complete as required by law. As large number of appeals have to be examined over and over again, even initial examination of the matter is held up for months. It is also noticed that almost every appeal takes eight to nine months to get ready for issuing of notices. Moreover, civil applications which are filed for condoning delays are again incomplete and they start the chain of examinations. The state of affairs is more deplorable in cases where stay or injunction is obtained on admission of an appeal subject to office objections. It gives an advantage to the appellant and his lethargy pays dividends. Surely, this state of affairs can hardly be tolerated.

(5) Experience has shown that the burden of seeing that requirement of the law is complied with, is thrown by the litigants and the Gentlemen at the bar on the clerical staff of the office. It is the office that must point out whether the appeal is filed after the period of limitation or not. If it is filed beyond time, then in a leisurely manner an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is filed. If there are defects in the filing, then they have to be pointed out and they are removed one after the other. Even though we are living in a period where there are only rights and privileges but no obligations, this state of affairs cannot be permitted.

(6) This case illustrates what I have said above. The application for condonation of the delay has not even been numbered because the objections in the appeal have not been removed. I have examined the application for the condonation of delay and I find that it is not dated and does not bear the signature of the Advoca

Click Here to Read the rest of this document