IMPORTANT POINT
Bail - Petitioner attributing Kirpan blow on the finger of the left hand of injured, not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.

AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL)

1. This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for bail in a case lodged under Sections 323, 324, 326, 341, 506, 148 and 149 IPC.

2. It is contended that the parties have compromised and the co-accused has been allowed bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

3. Having gone through the FIR, I find that the petitioner has been attributed a Kirpan blow on the finger of the left hand of injured. In view of the specific attribution, no ground for anticipatory bail is made out.

4. Dismissed.

-

2006 (4) LAW HERALD 3299 (P&H)

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

Before

SURYA KANT, J.

CIVIL REVISION NO. 6747 OF 2005

10.10.2006

Vijay Bansal

Petitioner

Vs.

Manjit Singh

Respondents

For the Petitioner : Mr. Vishal Sharma, Advocate.

For the Respondent : Mr. A.K. Kalsi, Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINT

Condonation of delay - Unless the Court finds that a litigant has acted in a totally negligent manner or his action lacks bonafide, the Courts shall make an endeavour to decide the lis on merits

Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Condonation of delay - “Sufficient Cause” - Should receive a liberal construction so as to advance the cause of substantial justice - Unless the Court finds that a litigant has acted totally in a negligent manner or his action lacks bonafide, the Courts shall make an endeavour to decide the lis on merits - The Court is required to have pedantic approach in a pragmatic manner. (Para 6)

Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - “Sufficient Cause” - Delay of 21 days - Condonation of - Petitioner was sentenced and taken into custody in a criminal case - “Sufficient Cause” exists to condone delay - Delay condoned subject to payment of cost of Rs. 3000/. - Revision allowed. (Para 8)

Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Condonation of delay - Costs - Vested right - A right might accrue in favour of other party - Cannot be termed to be vested right of such a nature that deprivation thereof cannot be compensated in terms of costs. (Para 6)

Words and Phrases - Pedantic - Pragmatic

(i) Pedantic - Excessively concerned with minor detail or displaying technical knowledge.

(ii) Pragmatic - Dealing with things in practical manner rather than theoretical.

JUDGMENT

SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL)

1. This revision petition has been directed against the judgment dated 9th November, 2005 passed by the Appellate Authority, Ludhiana whereby the petitioner’s rent appeal against the order of eviction dated 23rd December,2003 passed by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, has been dismissed being barred by limitation. According to the Appellate Authority, there was delay of 21 days in filing of the appeal.

2. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner is a tenant in the premises owned by the respondent. An eviction petition was filed against the petitioner which was accepted by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, who ordered petitioner’s eviction vide his judgment dated 23rd December, 2003. Though, the appeal was required to be filed within a period of fifteen days, the petitioner filed the same on 28th January, 2004. Along with the appeal, he moved an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which has, however, been dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide its impugned order dated 9th November, 2005, resultantly his appeal has also been dismissed.

3. The condonation of delay in filing of the appeal was sought on the ground that the petitioner was implicated in FIR No.378 of 2000, under Sections 366,376,506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and was convicted in the said case by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ludhiana, vide his judgment dated 27th May, 2003 and was sentenced to undergo RI for ten years. The petitioner was taken into custody on 27th May, 2003. The eviction order dated 23th December, 2003 was passed while the petitioner was in jail. He came out on parole on 2nd January, 2004 and upon visiting the Courts came to know about the eviction order on 3rd January, 2004. The petitioner thereafter applied for th