The court has discretion to condone the delay in filing an appeal if it finds sufficient cause, and this discretion should be exercised liberally to advance substantial justice.

Per Syed Wasi-ud-Din J.

In this appeal an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed on behalf of the appellant, the State of Jammu and Kashmir, for the condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. The relevant facts briefly stated are as follows :-

2. There was a civil original suit numbered as Suit No. 11 of 1957 filed by the present respondent No. 1. The suit was against the Union of India and the State of Jammu and Kashmir. A decree for a sum of Rs. 1,41,213.25 was passed on August, 3, 1971 against the State of Jammu and Kashmir only by the Hon™ble Chief Justice sitting singly. The present appeal against that decree was filed on March, 1, 1972. This position is not disputed that the limitation for filling the appeal expired on November, 3, 1971, and hence there was a delay in filing the appeal. An application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation has been filed. A notice was issued to the other side on the point of limitation and a rejoinder has been also filed by the respondent.

3. The case of the appellant is that after the decree was passed on August 3, 1971 Shri A.N. Raina who was then the Advocate General of the State Informed the petitioner-appellant about the said decision and also suggested that the case is a fit one for appeal. He gave this information on August 11, 1971 by a letter addressed to the Secretary to the Government General Department. The matter was processed in the Law Department in order to consider the advisibility of filing the appeal and it was finally decided that an appeal should be filed against the aforesaid decree. Directions were therefore, given to the Advocate General to file the appeal by a letter dated August 26, 1971. The Advocate General informed the State that necessary funds amounting to Rs. 2,400/- were required and this sum of Rs. 2,400/- was placed at the disposal of the Advocate General for this purpose on Oct. 1, 1971. It has also been stated in the petition supported by an affidavit that on completion of the necessary requirements for filing the appeal, Shri A. N. Raina the then Advocate General gave the petitioner to understand that the appeal has been filed by him in the High Court within the prescribed period of limitation. It has further been submitted that after having entrusted the matter and after having been informed by Shri A. N. Raina the appellant-petitioner was under the impression that the appeal had been preferred and all that was necessary had been done. On Feb. 9, 1972 the present respondent who is the decree holder approached the Secretary to Government General Department and enquired from him as to what arrangements had been made by the Government for payment of the decretal amount. He also disclosed to him at that time that no appeal had been filed against the decree in question. The matter was then immediately taken up with the Law Secretary and the present Advocate General to verify the position. It is also stated that the P.A. to the Advocate General reported that the appeal had been filed at Srinagar in the High Court in the first week of October 1971 and a copy of the memorandum of appeal stated to have been filed in the High Court was also made available by the P.A. to the Advocate General. The Deputy Registrar of the High Court at Srinagar was approached to verify the actual position and then ultimately it was revealed that no such appeal was pending there. It has therefore been submitted on behalf of the petitioner-appellant that it was due to the default of the ex-Advocate General Shri A. N. Raina that, the appeal had not been filed within the prescribed time and the petitioner had all along been given to understand that the appeal had been duly filed which was further affirmed by the fact that an amount of Rs. 2,400/- advanced to the ex-Advocate General to meet the expenses on court fee and other charges for filing the appeal has not been returned to the petitioner even upto date. The petitioner-appellant there

Click Here to Read the rest of this document