Back
2018 Supreme(Gau) 894
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI AT AIZAWL BENCH
SONGKHUPCHUNG SERTO, J.
Northern Front Railway - Appellant
Vs.
Lalmalsawmi - Respondent
Interlocutory Application (Civil) No. 60 of 2018
Decided On : 28-09-2018
Ali Hussain, Adv., Lalsawirema, Adv., P.D. Nair, Adv., Andy Zoramdinliana, Adv., Samuel Vanlalhriata Chhangte, Adv.
The burden of proof lies heavily on the applicant to show the reasonableness of the delay in seeking condonation, especially for government machinery. Government departments are under a special obligation to ensure diligence and promptitude in filing appeals.
Headnote:
Limitation Act - Condonation of Delay - 1963 - [APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT, 1963] - [PARA-3(a) & (C), PARA-3(b) & (C), PARA-3(d) (e) (f) (g)] - The court discussed the reasons for delay in filing the appeal, the liberal approach of courts in granting condonation of delays, and the obligation of government departments to ensure diligence and promptitude in filing appeals. The court emphasized the need for a reasonable and sufficient explanation for delay, especially for government machinery, and highlighted the burden of proof on the applicant to show the reasonableness of the delay. The court ultimately dismissed the application for condonation of delay due to the failure to discharge the burden of proof.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant sought condonation of delay of 419 days in filing a Regular First Appeal against a judgment and order dated 18.01.2017. The delay was attributed to the decision-making process within the government machinery, including obtaining legal opinions and channeling the matter through various authorities.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the reasons for delay provided by the applicant did not sufficiently justify the 419-day delay in filing the appeal. The court emphasized the need for a reasonable and sufficient explanation for the delay, especially for government machinery, and highlighted the burden of proof on the applicant to show the reasonableness of the delay.
Issues: The main issue was the justification for the 419-day delay in filing the appeal, particularly in the context of the decision-making process within the government machinery.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a reasonable and sufficient explanation for the delay, especially for government machinery, and highlighted the burden of proof on the applicant to show the reasonableness of the delay. The court also highlighted the obligation of government departments to ensure diligence and promptitude in filing appeals.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the application for condonation of delay due to the failure to discharge the burden of proof.
S Serto, J.
This is an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, praying for condonation of delay of 419 days in filing a Regular First Appeal directed against the judgment and order dated 18.01.2017, passed by the learned District Judge, Aizawl, in L.A Case No. 42/2015.
2. Heard Mr. Ali Hussain, learned counsel for the applicant and also heard Mr. Lalsawirema, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties/respondents and Mr. Samuel Vanlalhriata Chhangte, learned Government Advocate appearing for the proforma respondents No. 178 & 179.
3. The reasons for delay given at para-3 of the application are referred to and read over by the learned counsel of the applicant. The same are reproduced here below verbatim;
(a) The applicant/appellant obtained certified copy of the Judgment and Order dated 14/06/2017 and the said Order was delivered on 7/11/2017 through the Ld. Counsel NF Railway, Mr. Ali Hussain. Thereafter, the aforesaid certified copy of the Judgment and Order dated 18/1/2017 was forwarded by him to the concerned authority of NF. Railway, Maligaon, Gauhati - 11, Assam.
(b) Thereafter, after following various formalities the concerned Chief Law Assistant (CLA) put up before the concerned Law Officer (Construction) NF. Railway for legal opinion regarding preferring an appeal.
(c) On receipt of the above impugned Judgment on dated 7/11/2017 the Order was sent to the concerned Law Officer (Construction), NF.Railway requested the Ld. Counsel of the Railway Mr. Ali Hussain for giving his legal opinion and accordingly, the Ld. Counsel for the NF Railway, Ali Hussain gave his legal opinion on 4/1/2018. However, on perusal of the said legal opinion, the Law Officer (Construction) NF.Railway being not satisfied, further requested the Ld. Counsel of the Railway Ali Hussain to give fresh opinion and accordingly, the Ld. Counsel for the NF. Railways Ali Hussain gave his fresh opinion with suggestion to file Appeal against impugned Judgment and Order dated 18/1/2017.
(d) After obtaining opinion of the concerned Ld. Counsel of the NF.Railway Ali Hussai, the matter was forwarded to the Chief Engineer (Construction), NF Railway Maligaon, Gauhati-11, Assam and was further handed over to the other Chief Law Assistant (CLA) for intimating the Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction) Silchar, Assam in this regard and accordingly the Sr. Law Officer (Construction) Maligaon : Gauhati-11, Assam intimated the Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction) Silchar : Assam to arrange for filing appeal before the Hon'ble High Court, Aizawl Bench, Mizoram.
(e) Thereafter, the Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction) Silchar : Assam directed the Chief Law Assistant to take immediate steps for nomination of Railway Counsel as well as filing appeal and as such, the Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction) Silchar nominated the Railway Advocate Ali Hussain for filing appeal before the High Court : Aizawl : Bench : Mizoram.
(f) On receipt of the approval as well as after consultation with the special Counsel NF. Railway : Gauhati : Assam, nomination of Railway Counsel from the Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction) Silchar : Assam the case file was forwarded for execution and/or signature of Vakalatnama which was signed and finally sent back the case file to the Senior Law Officer (Construction), NF. Railway.
(g) Thereafter, the Senior Law Officer (Construction) intimated the Ld. Counsel of the applicants/appellants for filing appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 18/1/2017 before the High Court Aizawl Bench : Mizoram.
4. The learned counsel after having referred to the reasons stated above went on to submit that after the preparation of the memorandum of appeal along with the two I.A. applications was over he intimated to the Chief Law Assistant about the same over phone and asked him to come to Aizawl for finalizing the memorandum of appeal along with the two I.A applications. Thereafter, the memorandum of appeal draft was once again sent to th
