1974 Supreme(P&H) 50

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
R.S.Narula, Bal Raj Tuli and Muni Lal Verma JJ.
Bikram Dass
Versus
Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, Chandigarh
Letter Patent Appeal No. 65 of 1971,
Decided On : MARCH 19, 1974

The power to condone delay or extend time for filing an appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent is not confined to the Bench admitting the appeal.

Headnote:

LETTERS PATENT APPEAL - CONDONATION OF DELAY - JURISDICTION - LIMITATION - REFILING OF APPEAL - INCOMPLETE APPEAL - MANDATORY PROVISIONS - VALIDITY OF APPEAL.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant filed a Letters Patent Appeal against the order of the Financial Commissioner, which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge. The appellant filed an appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent, but it was returned by the Deputy Registrar for removing defects and to refile it within a week. The appeal was refiled after removing the defects, but no objection was taken by the Deputy Registrar to its having been refiled after more than a week allowed by him. The appeal was admitted by the Motion Bench without adverting to the question of limitation. When the appeal came up for hearing before the Division Bench, the respondents raised the objection that it was barred by time. The appellant moved an application for condonation of delay, if there was any, in presenting the appeal.

Finding of the Court:

1. The power to condone delay or extend time for filing an appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent of this Court is not confined to the Bench admitting the appeal. Rule 4 of Chapter 1-A (a) of the Rules and Orders of this Court, Vol. V/s. takes away the jurisdiction of the Bench hearing the appeal or any Bench other than the Motion Bench to extend the time. 2. The delay in preferring the appeal is not deemed to have been impliedly condoned by the Motion Bench by admitting it to a hearing after the expiry of the period of limitation. 3. A Letters Patent Appeal, which has not been rejected under Order XLI, Rule 3 of the Code, can be dismissed as barred by time on the ground that though it was originally filed within time, it has been refiled along with spare paper-books beyond time. 4. The Registry entertaining an appeal which is refiled after the expiry of the period of limitation beyond the time allowed in the endorsement of return, but within forty days of the order of return if the appeal when originally filed was within time, has the effect of extending the time allowed by the Deputy Registrar in the first instance for amendment and refiling of the same up to the date when it was so entertained by him. 5. An appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent can be held to be incomplete or "no appeal in the eye of law" merely because it is not accompanied by the requisite three spare copies of the paper-book.

Issues: 1. Whether the power to condone delay or extend time for filing an appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent of this Court is confined to the Bench admitting the appeal and Rule 4 of Chap. 1-A (a) of the Rules and orders of this Court, Vol. V/s. takes away the jurisdiction of the Bench hearing the appeal or any Bench other than the Motion Bench to extend the time? 2. Whether the delay in preferring the appeal is deemed to have been impliedly condoned by the Motion Bench by admitting it to a hearing after the expiry of the period of limitation? 3. Can a Letters Patent Appeal, which has not been rejected under Order XLI, Rule 3 of the Code, be dismissed as barred by time on the ground that though it was originally filed within time, it has been refiled along with spare paper-books beyond time? 4. What is the effect of the Registry entertaining an appeal which is refiled after the expiry of the period of limitation beyond the time allowed in the endorsement of return, but within forty days of the order of return if the appeal when originally filed was within time? 5. Can an appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent be held to be incomplete or "no appeal in the eye of law" merely because it is not accompanied by the requisite three spare copies of the paper-book?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The power to condone delay or extend time for filing an appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent is not confined to the Bench admitting the appeal. Rule 4 of Chapter 1-A (a) of the Rules and Orders of this Court, Vol. V/s. takes away the jurisdiction of the Bench hearing the appeal or any Bench other than the Motion Bench to extend the time. 2. The delay in preferring the appeal is not deemed to have been impliedly condoned by the Motion Bench by admitting it to a hearing after the expiry of the period of limitation. 3. A Letters Patent Appeal, which has not been rejected under Order XLI, Rule 3 of the Code, can be dismissed as barred by time on the ground that though it was originally filed within time, it has been refiled along with spare paper-books beyond time. 4. The Registry entertaining an appeal which is refiled after the expiry of the period of limitation beyond the time allowed in the endorsement of return, but within forty days of the order of return if the appeal when originally filed was within time, has the effect of extending the time allowed by the Deputy Registrar in the first instance for amendment and refiling of the same up to the date when it was so entertained by him. 5. An appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent can be held to be incomplete or "no appeal in the eye of law" merely because it is not accompanied by the requisite three spare copies of the paper-book.

Final Decision: The appeal was sent back to the Division Bench for final disposal in light of the observations made by the Full Bench. The Division Bench was also directed to decide the application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.