O. 41, R. 3-A, C. P. C. is mandatory and requires an application for condonation of delay to be filed along with the appeal. O. 41, R. 3-A, C. P. C. applies to appeals relating to the Arbitration Act.

( 1 ) A question: "whether for condonation of delay in filing an appeal, any application in writing accompanied by affidavit is essential?", is required to be answered in these five revision petitions relating to the abovesaid same parties.

( 2 ) THESE five revisions arose out of a common judgment dt. 4th Aug. , 1984 dismissing five appeals on the ground that the appeals were barred by time in view of the provisions of O. 41, R. 3-A, C. P. C.

( 3 ) FIRST the facts in brief giving rise to the present revision petitions which are as under: five petitions under Ss. 14 and 17, Arbitration Act were instituted on 20th Nov. , 1979. Objections were filed. After hearing the parties, objections filed by the petitioner were dismissed and awards were made rule of the Court by five judgments dt. 7th Jan. , 1984.

( 4 ) THE appellant applied for certified copies of judgments in five cases on 13th Jan. , 1984. The copies in appeals Nos. 25, 26 and 28 of 84 were delivered on 19th Mar. , 1984, copy in appeal No. 24/84 was delivered on 20th Mar. , 1984, and in appeal No. 27, on 24th Mar. , 1984. All the appeals were filed in the Court of senior Sub-Judge on 3rd Apr. , 1984. It is apparent that appeals Nos. 25, 26 and 28 of 1984 were filed before Senior Sub-Judge within 21 days, appeal No. 24 of 1984 within 20 days, and appeal No. 27 of 1984 within 16 days, after excluding the time spent in obtaining certified copies. On 23rd Apr. , 1984, the appeals were returned under orders of Additional Senior Sub-Judge Shri R. C. Chopra. On the same date, all these five appeals were filed again in the Court of District Judge. The limitation for filing the appeals in RCA 25, 26 and 28 of 1984 expired on 12-4-84 after excluding the period spent in obtaining the certified copy. In appeal RCA 24/84, the limitation expired on 13-4-1984 and in RCA 27/84, the limitation expired on 17th Apr. , 1984. So, when the appeals were filed before the learned District Judge, the appeals had already admittedly become time-barred as under item 116 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act, the appeals under the Civil P. C. 1908 were to be filed before the District Court within 30 days from the date of decree or order excluding, of course, the time spent in obtaining copy.

( 5 ) GRIEVANCE of the revision petitioner is that rigid rule of moving application for condonation of delay should not have been applied in view of the settled law that the technical rules are made to promote the cause of justice. Delay should have been condoned particularly in view of the observation in the impugned judgment that the objection under S. 33 could not have been dismissed as time barred and the learned sub-judge was duty-bound to have decided these objections on merits. There was no need of written application and even oral prayer could be allowed. In view of Ms. Nirmala Chaudhary v. Bisheshwar Lal, AIR 1979 Delhi 26, it was not at all necessary to file an application for condonation of delay. It was not even necessarily implied in law that the powers of the Court to condone the delay was circumscribed by an application being filed. The appellate Court wrongly applied provision of O. 41, R. 3-A. Thus, everything revolves round the applicability of O. 41, R. 3-A of the Civil P. C.

( 6 ) AS such, it would be appropriate to reproduce O. 41, R. 3-A. CPC for proper appreciation. This rule reads as under:

"3a. (1) When an appeal is presented after the expiry of the period of limitation specified therefor, it shall be accompanied by an application supported by affidavit setting forth the facts on which the appellant relies to satisfy the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within such period. (2) If the Court sees no reason to reject the application without the issue of a notice to the respondent, notice thereof shall be issued to the respondent and the matter shall be finally decided by the Court before it proceeds to deal with the appeal under Rule 11 or Rule 13, as the case m

Click Here to Read the rest of this document