P. R. GOKULAKRISHNAN, J.

( 1 ) THIS Letters Patent Appeal is against the order passed by the learned single Judge condoning the delay of 290 days in preferring the First Appeal against the judgment and decree of the City Civil Court passed in Civil Suit No. 1315 of 1983 The operative portion of the order passed by the City Civil Judge is as follows:"the Suit is decreed. The 1st defendant and its members are hereby permanently restrained from holding Dharna ghearoing officers servants and agents of the plaintiff or resorting to any form of violence at Ahmedabad Electricity House Relief Road Lal Darwaja Ahmedabad (ii) Old Power House and Jubilee House both situated at Shahpur Abmedabad and (iii) the manufacturing plant i. e. generating power station situated at Sabarmati Abmedabad. They are restrained form entering into the said premises for any purpose except for the due discharge of their legitimate duties. They are also restrained from causing any damage or loss or destruction or in any way dealing with or interfering with the machinery Installations transformers sub-stations furniture fixtures records and all the every other property movable and immovable of the plaintiff company in any manner whatsoever. There shall be no order as to costs. The decree shall be drawn in the above terms. Order accordingly". Aggrieved by the said decree the 1st respondent has preferred First Appeal No. 91 of 1989 and also filed Civil Application No. 39 of 1989 praying to condone the delay of 290 days. The application for condonation of delay was filed with reasons stated therein. Affidavit-in-reply was filed by the appellant herein refuting the averments made in the petition filet with a prayer for condoning the delay. The learned single Judge condoned the delay observing:"sufficient cause shown. Delay condoned. Rule made absolute accordingly". The learned Advocate General who is appearing for the appellants elaborately argued as to how such an order cannot be sustained and as to how the learned single Judge has not exercised his judicial discretion before condoning the delay. Mr. Clerk the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents on caveat cited number of authorities to show that the order passed by the learned single Judge in condoning the delay is a discretionary order and the same cannot be interfered with at the Letters Patent Appeal stage.

( 2 ) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the respective parties herein agreed that the Letters Patent Appeal may be admitted and finally Wed of today itself fully all the arguments have been answered if it is final hearing of the Letters Patent Appeal. In views of this consensus arrived at between the parties we beard the learned Advocates of both sides fully and after admitting the Letters patent Appeal we are passing the following order as final order in the Letters Patent Appeal.

( 3 ) IN the Civil Application for condoning the delay which is Civil Application No. 39 of 1989 it is stated by the 1st respondent herein that he was elected as a General Secretary of the Union in the year 1988 that he was not aware of Civil Suit No. 1315 of 1983 ponding before the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad that he was not aware of the judgment being delivered in that suit on 9-2-1988 that the earlier General Secretary Shri Rathod had not apprised the present General Secretary about the pendency of such a suit and that he came to know only when a letter was received from the appellant herein in reply to certain correspondence sent by the 1st respondent. Hence according to the 1st respondent delay has been caused in corning forward with the First Appeal against the judgment and decree in Civil Suit No. 1315 of 1983.

( 4 ) THE contention of the 1st respondent in the condonation petition was refuted by the appellant herein in the affidavit-in-reply filed by Dy. Manager Shri P. K. Desai. According to the appellant the present General Secretary was elected as early as 1986 that it is not correct to state that Mr. S. B. Patel

Click Here to Read the rest of this document