The main legal point established in the judgment is that delays in filing appeals must be justified with genuine and credible reasons, and the misuse of legal provisions can lead to dismissal of the appeal.

V.K. SHALI, J. (ORAL)

1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the order dated 16th May, 2012 passed by the learned Additional District Judge in Civil suit bearing No.282/2006 titled M/s Sethi Golden Transport Co. Vs. M/s Tata Blue Scope Steel Ltd. rejecting the application of the appellant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. It may be pertinent here to mention that the respondent herein had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 11,55,516/- from the appellant. After completion of the pleadings of the parties, an issue with regard to the territorial jurisdiction was framed on the basis of the objections purported to have been taken by the appellant, which reads as under:-

“Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit? OPD”

2. The onus of proof of this issue was on the defendant/appellant, however, the appellant /defendant in order to ensure that the suit for recovery does not proceed against him, chose to file an application u/O 7 Rule 11 CPC raising the plea of territorial jurisdiction as a ground of rejection of the plaint. The said application was rejected by the impugned order. Though the order was passed on 16.5.2012 but the appeal has been filed after a delay of 75 days and thereafter, it was recollected on account of objections having been raised by the registry and re-filed after the delay of 202 days.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the record.

4. Before the appeal can be considered on merits, a party has to ensure that the appeal is to be filed within the statutory permissible time. In the first application seeking condonation of 75 days’ delay, explanation which has been given by the appellant is that the appellant is a Pune based company and the counsel on whom they were dependent for prosecuting the matter was taking his examination of the post graduate degree in Pune and therefore, was out of station. Thereafter, the courts got closed on account of summer vacation and after summer vacation when enquiries were made by the appellant in order to find out the status of the matter, the file was not traceable in the dealing section, therefore, inspection could not be conducted. It is further stated that after the file was traced, inspection was conducted and it was learnt that an application under Section 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed, certified copy of the order was applied and the information was sent to Pune office of the appellant for the purpose of taking decision by the Board. On perusal of the order by the Board, the Court took a decision to file an appeal.

5. If one sees the application for condonation of delay in the first instance, there is a specific provision under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing an appeal if ‘sufficient cause’ is shown. The application was to be filed u/S 5 of the Limitation Act while as, the application does not find a mention of this specific provision of law much less the word ‘sufficient cause’ has been used in the application.

6. All that has been said in the application is that the appeal could not be filed on account of these bona fide reasons which were neither deliberate nor intentional and the delay was occurred on account of mistake of the counsel who was pursuing his post graduate degree.

7. A perusal of the application shows that the date was 12th September, 2012 while as the affidavit of Ravindra Kumar H.Suryavanshi, the so-called corporate counsel for the appellant was dated 1st May, 2013. The application gives an impression from the pleadings that the counsel who was representing the appellant in the High Court was not interested in filing the appeal and was actually pursuing his post graduation degree while as in the affidavit which has been filed, his name has not been disclosed and the affidavit which has been annexed along with the appeal is that of one Ravindra Kumar H. Suryavanshi. The explanation