Back
1986 Supreme(Ori) 176
High Court Of Orissa
B. K. BEHERA, P. C. MISRA
BALARAM DAS - Appellant
Versus
SARATHI DALAPATI - Respondent
ORISSA JURISDICTION 1459 Of 1979
Decided On : 12/02/1986
P.V.Ramdas
The explanation of each day's delay is required only for the delay after the expiry of the period of limitation, not for the delay in taking steps to obtain certified copies within the limitation period.
Headnote:
Delay in Filing Appeals - Condonation of Delay - Explanation of Each Day's Delay Required
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed two appeals with a few days' delay and applied to condone the delay under S. 5 of the Limitation Act. The appeals were to be preferred on or before June 20, 1979, but were presented on July 1, 1979. The petitioner claimed to have been ill from June 20, 1979 till July 6, 1979. The appellate authority rejected the plea for condonation of delay due to delay in applying for certified copies.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellate authority was wrong in concluding that each day's delay, including the delay in applying for certified copies, needed to be explained. It held that only the delay after the expiry of the period of limitation needed to be explained.
Issues: The issues involved the delay in filing the appeals, the plea for condonation of delay due to illness, and the delay in applying for certified copies.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that only the delay after the expiry of the period of limitation needed to be explained, not the delay in taking steps to obtain certified copies within the limitation period.
Final Decision: The writ applications were allowed, Annexure-5 in each case was quashed, and the Collector and District Magistrate were directed to admit the appeals and dispose of them in accordance with the law.
BEHERA, J.
( 1 ) IN both these writ applications, the same question of law is involved and this common order will govern both the cases. The petitioner had preferred two appeals, viz. , Regulation Appeals Nos. 87 and 88 of 1979. For a few days' delay in preferring the appeals, applications had been made under S. 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay. Directed against the orders passed by the Officer on Special Duty, Parlakhemundi, dated May 21, 1979, the appeals were to be preferred on or before June 20, 1979. The appeals, however, were presented on July 1, 1979. The case of the petitioner in both the appeals was that he had been suffering on and from June 20, 1979 till July 6, 1979. The Collector and District Magistrate did not, in terms, reject the plea of the petitioner with regard to his illness. Notice was, however, taken of the fact that there had been delay on the part of the petitioner in making applications for certified copies, the petitioner having taken steps in this regard twenty-nine days after the passing of the orders impugned in the appeals. According to him, "since the whole period of delay has not been explained in the prayer for condonation of delay", no sufficient cause has been shown by the petitioner for condoning the delay in the two appeals.
( 2 ) UPON hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, without any one appearing for the opposite parties, we are of the view that the appellate authority was wholly wrong in arriving at the conclusion. Each day's delay after the expiry of the period of limitation is to be explained and not each day's delay even for taking steps in getting the certified copy after the passing of the impugned order. In the two cases giving rise to the two appeals, applications for copies had been made within the period of thirty days and by the time the applications were made, time had not expired for preferring appeals.
( 3 ) WE would allow the writ applications, quash Annexure-5 in each case and direct the Collector and District Magistrate to admit the appeals and dispose them of in accordance with law.
( 4 ) P. C. MISRA, J. :- I agree. Petition allowed.
