The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the computation of the delay period in filing the chamber appeal.

JUDGMENT

Mini Pushkarna, J. - I.A. 1547/2020 (under Section 5 & 14 of Limitation Act read with Section 151 of CPC for condonation of delay in filing the Chamber Appeal)

1. By this application under Sections 5 & 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 151 CPC, defendant no. 1/appellant herein seeks condonation of delay in filing chamber appeal. It is the case of defendant No.1/Appellant that there is a delay of 5 days in filing the accompanying chamber appeal filed under Rule 5, Chapter - II of Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.

2. The chamber appeal has been filed by defendant no. 1 against order dated 30.07.2019 passed by Joint Registrar. By the said order dated 30.07.2019, ld. Joint Registrar has disposed of application filed on behalf of plaintiff, being I.A. 5173/2019 under Order XXII Rule 4 CPC.

3. Appellant/defendant no. 1 had earlier filed a chamber appeal bearing O.A. No. 108/2019 against the aforesaid order dated 30.07.2019 passed by Joint Registrar. The first appeal, O.A. No. 108/2019 was filed on 19.08.2019 after a delay of 5 days. The said appeal was disposed of as withdrawn vide order dated 21.01.2020 with liberty to file a fresh appeal within a period of two weeks. The first appeal was withdrawn in view of objection of plaintiff/respondent herein that said appeal contained averments post the first filing of the said appeal. In view of addition of subsequent facts, the first appeal was allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh appeal. Thus, it is the case of appellant that present appeal was filed on 30.01.2020 within the stipulated two weeks as granted by this Court vide order dated 21.01.2020 and that there is delay of 5 days in filing the present appeal that occurred at the time of filing of first appeal. Thus, it is prayed that delay of 5 days in filing the appeal may be condoned.

4. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for plaintiff/respondent herein has vehemently opposed the application for condonation of delay on the ground that delay ought to be counted from 14.08.2019, i.e., after expiry of 15 days of the order dated 30.07.2019 passed by Ld. Joint Registrar to 30.01.2020, when the present chamber appeal was filed. Thus, as per plaintiff/respondent herein the delay in filing present appeal is not merely 5 days, but much more as the present appeal is against order dated 30.07.2019 passed by Joint Registrar. Further, it is submitted that provisions of Section 5 and Section 14 of the Limitation Act will not be applicable in the present case, since provisions of Section 14 would apply only in case where the earlier proceedings were being pursued in a wrong forum. Thus, it is contended that appellant has to seek condonation right from 14.08.2019 when limitation to file appeal expired in the first instance till 30.01.2020, when the present chamber appeal was filed.

5. A perusal of record shows that first appeal being O.A. No. 108/2019 was filed by appellant on 19.08.2019 after a delay of 5 days. The said appeal kept on pending for a long time till it came to be disposed of by way of order dated 21.01.2020 passed by this Court. While granting leave to appellant herein to withdraw first appeal, this Court had specifically granted liberty to appellant to file fresh appeal along with necessary applications within two weeks. The present appeal came to be filed on 30.01.2020, well within the period of two weeks as granted by this Court.

6. It is in this background that this Court has to consider whether present appeal has been filed with a delay of 5 days as contended by appellant. Indisputably, if the period taken for pursuing first appeal is excluded, then delay in filing the present appeal will only be 5 days.

7. At this stage, it would be fruitful to refer to judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shakti Tubes Limited Through Director Vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2009) 1 SCC 786. It has been held in the said judgment that even in a case where a petition has been filed before a court