Back
2016 Supreme(Megh) 119
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
S.R. SEN, J.
Dhan Bahadur Master — Appellant
Versus
Daisy Diengdoh — Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No. 29 of 2014
Decided on : 01-06-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. S. Chakrawarty, Sr. Advocate and Ms. M. Mahanta, Advocate,
For the Respondent:Mr. T.T. Diengdoh, learned Sr. counsel and Mr. K. Barua, Advocate,
Headnote:
Condonation of Delay - Civil Procedure - The court set aside the impugned order and condoned the delay of 303 days, directing the trial of the appeal on its merits.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed an appeal along with a condonation petition for a delay of 303 days, which was not considered by the lower court. The petitioner sought to quash the impugned order and remand the matter for trial on merit.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted that the lower court did not consider the merit of the case while deciding the condonation petition. It emphasized the need to examine the merit of the subject matter in deciding such petitions and highlighted the duty of the court to render substantial justice.
Issues: Delay condonation, Merit consideration, Duty of the court
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that delay should be condoned if there is merit found in the appeal, and highlighted the duty of the court to render substantial justice and not to shut the door of justice on mere technicalities.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, the delay of 303 days was condoned, and the trial of the appeal on its merits was directed. The execution case was ordered to be kept in abeyance until the final disposal of the appeal.
JUDGMENT :
S.R. Sen, J.
The matter came up for learning.
2. Mr. S. Chakrawarty, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Ms. M. Mahanta, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. T.T. Diengdoh, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. K. Barua, Learned counsel appeared on behalf of the respondent.
3. The learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner submits that an appeal bearing FAO. No. 1 of 2014 was filed before the learned District Judge cum Additional Deputy Commissioner, Nongpoh along with Misc. Case No. 1 of 2014. The prayer in the said Misc. Case No. 1 of 2014 was to condone the delay of 303 days, but the same was not considered by the then District Judge and prays to quash the impugned order dated 30.09.2014 which is at Annexure-19 of the writ petition.
4. The learned Sr. counsel further contended that the learned court below passed the said impugned order dated 30.09.2014 without applying the mind and without considering the merit of the case and prayed that the said impugned order dated 30.09.2014 may be set aside and the matter may be remand back to the learned District Judge, Nongpoh to try the appeal on merit, to which Mr. T.T. Diengdoh, learned Sr. counsel for the respondent has no objection.
5. I have perused the impugned order dated 30.09.2014 and after perusal of the same, I have noticed that the learned court below while deciding the condonation petition i.e. Misc. Case No. 1 of 2014 noted that the petitioner could not satisfy or could not explain the delay upto the satisfaction of the court. The word "Satisfaction" to the court differs from case to case and from court to court. It is very wide in terms. One thing may be satisfied to my mind, but it might not be satisfactory upto the satisfaction of another person. Therefore, while deciding any condonation petition, it is always necessary to examine the merit of the subject matter or the question actually involved in the appeal. If there is any merit found in the appeal, in my considered view the delay should be condoned.
6. It is a settled principle of law that the primary duty of the court is to render substantial justice and not to shut the door of justice on mere technicalities. Thus, I agree with the submission of the learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner and after going through the documents of the case that, there is some merit in the case, which needs to be redressed. Besides that, Mr. T.T. Diengdoh, learned Sr. counsel for the respondent has no objection to the same.
7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 30.09.2014 is hereby set aside and the delay of 303 days is hereby condoned.
8. The learned District Judge, Nongpoh is directed to try the appeal on merit after hearing both the learned counsels.
9. It is further ordered that the Execution Case No. 1 (T) of 2014 shall be kept in abeyance till the final disposal of the appeal by the learned District Judge, Nongpoh.
10. The Registry is directed to return back the Lower Court case record to the concerned court along with a copy of this order.
11. With this observation and direction the instant petition is allowed and stands disposed of.
