Back
1999 Supreme(P&H) 773
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
V.S. Aggarwal, J.
Sowaran Singh - Petitioner
Versus
Inderjit - Respondents
Civil Revision No. 1015 of 1981.
Decided On : 3 August, 1999
For the Petitioner:Mr. Y.K. Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. H.L Bhatia, Advocate.
Condonation of delay due to illness as a valid ground for appeal
Headnote:
Delay Condonation - Revision Petition - The court condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the petitioner's illness and directed the appellate authority to decide the appeal on its merits.
Fact of the Case:
The appellate authority dismissed the appeal as barred by time and without good grounds for condonation of delay, which was only one day.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in filing the appeal was due to the petitioner's illness, and therefore, it should be condoned. The appellate authority was directed to decide the appeal on its merits.
Issues: Delay in filing the appeal, grounds for condonation of delay
Ratio Decidendi: The delay in filing the appeal was condoned due to the petitioner's illness, and the appellate authority was directed to decide the appeal on its merits.
Final Decision: The court ordered the condonation of delay and directed the appellate authority to decide the appeal on its merits.
JUDGMENT
V.S. Aggarwal, J. - The present revision petition is directed against the judgment of the appellate authority, Gurdaspur dated 26.3.1981. By virtue of the impugned judgment, the learned appellate authority dismissed the appeal holding that it was barred by time and that there are no good grounds for condonation of delay.
2. The delay in the present case was only of one day. The petitioners claim was that he was unwell and, therefore, could not file the appeal within time. The appellate authority had not believed the said ground. In the present case, perusal of the reveals that certified copy had been applied will within time i.e. after 3 days of the pronouncement of the order of the learned Rent Controller. The delay had to be explained only from the time, the period of limitation expired. It transpires that the petitioner was unwell and, therefore, it was a fit case where delay should be condoned. Accordingly, the delay is condoned.
3. It is directed that appellate authority will decide the appeal on its merits. The file should be put up before the learned appellate authority. Gurdaspur on 9th September, 1999.
Ordered Accordingly.
