The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Doctrine of Election of remedy, the requirement of certified copies of judgments and decrees for appeal maintainability, and the need to show sufficient cause for condonation of delay.

The revision petitions under Rule 36A of the rules for Administration of Justice and Police in Khasi and Jaintia Hills, 193 7 read with Article 227 of the Constitution have been directed against the judgment and decree dated 29.10.1998 passed by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Judge, Shillong dismissing the Money Appeal No. 8(T) and 9(T) of 1993.

2. The respondent M/s. Meghalaya Plywoods Limited instituted Money Suit Nos. 36(T) and 27(T) of 1982 for recovery of Rs.14,32,3507- and Rs. 14,20,0007-respectively as compensation for nondelivery of 18 trucks load of plywoods despatched from Byrnihat, Meghalaya to Chandigarh through M/s. Kamal Roadways under cover of an open Marine Transit Policy issued by the petitioner Insurance Company. The aforesaid two suits were decreed on 12.2.1993 by the learned trial Judge and the decrees thereof were prepared on 18.2.1993. The decrees were put into execution and the local office of the Insurance Company at Shillong was put under lock and key. However, the said office was reopened on certain conditions as ordered by the High Court; The Insurance Company preferred Money Appeal Nos. 8 and 9 of 1993 challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge. The said two appeals were also dismissed by the learned Appellate Court on 29.10.1998 on preliminary points relating to limitations and maintainability. The grievance of the insurance is that they were not given oppoitunity to tender documents and adduce evidence during the trial. On this background the Insurance Company approached this Court.

3.1 have heard Mr A.K. Phukan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and also Mr V.K. Jindal, learned senior counsel for the respondent.

4. The questions to be answered may be classified as under:-

(i) Whether the instant revision petitions are maintainable in view of the earlier Revision Petition Nos. 23(SH) of 1993 and 29(SH) of 1993 filed on 27.3.1993 against the Trial Court's judgments and decrees dated 12.2.1993 which were withdrawn on 16.8.1996 unconditionally?

(ii) Whether the appeals filed before the learned appellate Court without certified copies of the judgment and decrees were maintainable in law?

(iii) Whether the appeals before the learned appellate Court were maitainable under the Doctrine of Election of remedy?

(iv) Whether the appeals were maintainable under provisions of Order XX11I, Rule 1(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure?

(v) Whether the appeals were filed beyond the period of limitations and the Insurance Company could make out a case for condonation of delay?

5. Before the aforesaid questions are addressed, it is considered necessary to mention here that the disposal of the suits filed by the respondent company more than 20 years back for compensation of loss of goods during transit have been delayed on account of negligence of the insurance. Mr Jindal, learned senior counsel for the respondents, with reference to the records of the trial Court as well as the appellate Court, pointed out that the insurance were absent on as many as 15 days fixed by the trial Court without steps and the orders passed on four occasions to proceed ex-parte were vacated to ensure just and fair trial. Slid Jindal also pointed out that the insurance took adjournments on 18 occasions in the trial Court and even did not pursue the appeals seriously.

6. The judgment delivered by the trial Judge in both the money suits reflect elaborate discussion on merit. The judgments show that the learned trial Judge had to proceed with and dispose of the suits after appreciation of plaintiff s evidence on record as the defendant did not examine any witness despite opportunities given on several occasions.

7. There is, obviously, no scope on the part of this Court sitting in revision to deliberate upon merit. But the fact remains that the respondent company did not receive any amount against the Consignment Notes Exhibit-3(l) to 3(9) dated 12.6.1980 arid 14.6.1980 and 17.6.19