Amol Rattan Singh, J.

CM No. 11137-C-2014

By this application, condonation of a delay of 592 days in filing the accompanying appeal is sought by the appellant, Amritsar Improvement Trust.

Notice having been issued to the respondents on 07.04.2015, a reply thereto has also been filed by the respondents.

The reason for the delay in filing the appeal, is stated to be that after the judgment of the first appellate Court, dated 03.09.2012, became available, the Executive Officer of the Trust, one Shri Jiwan Bansal, had directed that a second appeal be filed against the judgments of the Courts below and that the matter be put up to the dealing assistant/clerk for further action. However, the said assistant/clerk failed to take immediate action and in fact, “the file went astray”.

Thereafter, in June 2014, the matter was brought to the notice of the Chairman of the Trust by the current Executive Officer and consequently, first disciplinary action was initiated against the erring officials and alongwith, the papers for filing the appeal were handed over to counsel for the Trust, after which the appeal was prepared and filed.

Hence, the long delay of 592 days is stated to have occurred. The application is accompanied by the affidavit of the Chairman of the Trust.

2. In reply thereto, other than stating that the appeal has been filed with wholly false averments contained therein, and that the respondent-plaintiffs are the true owners of the suit land, it has also been stated that the Trust and its Chairman have committed acts of perjury for which the Chairman deserves to be prosecuted.

It has further been contended that the charge sheet issued to the employees of the Trust is only an eye-wash and that in fact, earlier the plaintiffs having applied for a no objection certificate to raise construction on the suit land, and such representation not having been decided, they had filed CWP No. 8032 of 2015 before this Court which was disposed of with a direction to the Chairman to decide the representation by passing a speaking order. It has been stated that in that the appeal thereafter was preferred only after the respondent-plaintiffs applied for grant of the 'NOC'.

Consequently, it has been prayed that each days' delay not having been explained even in the application seeking condonation of delay, the application deserves to be dismissed.

3. Having considered the pleadings in that regard, as also the arguments addressed by learned counsel, it is first to be noticed that undoubtedly, it is very well settled that even Government and statutory bodies are required to explain each days' delay in filing any appeal. However, it is also equally well settled that the Government and statutory bodies being 'impersonal' bodies, delay in filing appeals needs to be more liberally condoned, if there is some justification seen by the Court for the same, for the reason that eventually it is public money/public property that is involved in such disputes. A judgment of the Supreme Court can be cited in this context, where a delay of more than 1000 days was condoned, in Market Committee, Hodal v. Krishan Murari and others (1996 LACC 100).

4. Whereas Mr. Narang, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiffs, may be correct in contending that the accompanying appeal was only filed after the plaintiffs applied for a no objection certificate to construct on the suit property, I see no reason to disbelieve the appellant Trust to the effect that actually a decision to institute the appeal had been taken in the year 2012 itself by the person then holding the post of Executive Officer but the clerks/assistants who were dealing with the file, remained amiss in their duty to actually carry it forward.

Even presuming that eventually it was only the filing of the no objection certificate which brought the issue to the fore before the Chairman of the Trust, that would be no reason, in the opinion of this Court, to deny a statutory body dealing with public land, the benefit