ORDER

Sunil Guar, J.

C.M. No. 4262/2011 (under Section 151 CPC) in LA. App. No.655/2010.

1. By this application, appellant seeks permission to place on record the certified copy of the impugned judgment and the correspondence (Annexure A/3 to Annexure A/7) to justify the delay occasioned in filing the accompanying appeal.

2. Without commenting upon the veracity of the aforesaid correspondence, as the same would be subject matter of the consideration in the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, certified copy of the impugned judgment (Annexure A1/2) as well as Copy of correspondence (Annexure A-3 to Annexure A-7) filed alongwith this application is taken on record.

3. Application stands disposed of.

C.M. No.11018/2010 (under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 479 days) & LA. App. No.655/2010

1. The delay in filing the accompanying appeal is of 479 days which was occasioned due to time consuming process of obtaining legal opinion to file the appeal against the impugned judgment and much time was consumed in obtaining sanction for purchasing Court fee of Rs.51,36,592/-. This is what is urged by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the appellant/applicant.

2. There is a strong opposition to this application by the contesting respondents, as it was submitted in their reply that no explanation is forthcoming as to why certified copy was not applied for a long period of six months, when the statutory period is of three months for filing of the appeal. It was pointed out that it took two months for the Deputy Commissioner to sanction the budget for the purchase of the Court fee and another three months for sanctioning the funds and even thereafter, it took three months for filing the accompanying appeal and all this shows that the applicant/appellant has acted in very casual and negligent manner, which does not justify the plea of the applicant/appellant of time being consumed in movement of the file from one desk to another. Reliance was placed upon an order of 25th August, 2010 of the Apex Court in Union of India vs. Anuradha Popli & Anr., refusing to condone the delay of 427 days. Another order of the Apex Court of 27th September, 2002 in Union of India vs. Hari Chand, refusing to condone the delay of 407 days and yet another order of 28th October, 2002 of the Apex Court in Union of India vs. Om Prakash, refusing to condone the delay of 417 days and order of 13.05.2011 of the Apex Court in Union of India vs. Ram Kishan, was relied upon, to assert that mere reliance on inter-department correspondence cannot be the basis of condoning the inordinate delay as the time taken for such deliberations must be sensible and reasonable. At the hearing, it was emphasized on behalf of the respondents that the delay is not only of 479 days but is of more than 15 months as certified copy of the impugned judgment was sought to be placed on record much after filing of the instant application. In support of the aforesaid submissions, on behalf of the respondents, reliance is placed upon decisions reported in Ajit Singh Thakur Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat, (1981) 1 SCC 495; Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswom, Perinadu Village vs. Bhargavi Amma (Dead) by LRs and Ors., (2008) 8 SCC 321; R.B. Ramlingam vs. R.B. Bhuvaneswari, (2009) 2 SCC 689; LA. App. No.144/2005 Union of India vs. Shri Birbal (Deceased) through legal heirs, decided on 27.4.2006; and in LA. App. No. 146/2006, Union of India vs. Shri Satish Gupta and Ors., decided on 27.4.2006

3. To counter the aforesaid opposition, learned senior counsel for the appellant/applicant was at pains to justify the indefensible conduct of the counsel representing the appellant/applicant before the Reference Court, of consuming a long period of six months in obtaining certified copy of the impugned judgment and of having it been misplaced, thereby compounding the sheer negligence. But it was pointed out by Mr.Poddar, learned senior counsel for the