delay of 1869 days- The appellate Tribunal has lost sight of this crucial aspect in condoning the abnormal delay of 1869 days in filing the appeal. This case has already witnessed change of one generation. The original declarant died and the petitioners have come on record in his place. Already 35 years had elapsed from the starting point of the litigation. Any latitude shown at this stage in favour of the respondent would lead to further prolongation of the litigation for many more years. In the light of these facts, I am of the opinion that the respondent miserably failed to offer satisfactory explanation for condonation of huge delay and the appellate Tribunal has committed a serious error in condoning the delay.


THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY            

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4595 of 2011  

21-03-2012

M.Yerrappa (died) by L.Rs. M.Satyanarayanappa & others

The Authorised Officer, Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Anantapur.

Counsel for Petitioners:  Sri O.Manohar Reddy

Counsel for Respondents:  G.P. for Arbitration

<GIST:

>HEAD NOTE:  

? CITATIONS:

ORDER:


        This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order, dated 21.07.2011, in
I.A.No.3 of 2006 in L.R.A.No.4 of 2008 on the file of the Land Reforms Appellate
Tribunal, Anantapur.

        The respondent is the appellant in L.R.A.No.4 of 2008 on the file of the
Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Anantapur.  The said appeal was filed against
order, dated 19.10.2010, in C.C.No.4060 to 4069/75/RDG on the file of the Land
Reforms Tribunal & R.D.O., Anantapur.  As there was delay in filing the said
appeal, the respondent filed I.A.No.3 of 2006 for condonation of delay of 1869
days in filing the appeal.  The petitioners filed a counter affidavit opposing
the said application.  By order, dated 30.04.2008, the appellate Tribunal
allowed the said application. Questioning the said order, the petitioners filed
C.R.P.No.2764 of 2008 in this Court.  The said Civil Revision Petition was
allowed by this Court by order, dated 19.10.2010, whereby this Court had set
aside the order of the appellate Tribunal and remanded the case with a direction
to the appellate Tribunal to give opportunity to both parties to let in evidence
as abnormal delay of 1869 days was involved.

After remand, oral evidence was let in by both parties.  On behalf of the
respondent, Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, was examined as PW.1 and, on
behalf of the petitioners, petitioner No.2 was examined as RW.1.  The appellate
Tribunal, by its order dated 21.07.2011, condoned the delay and allowed the I.A.
Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioners preferred the present Civil Revision
Petition.
        I have heard Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and
the learned Government Pleader for Arbitration appearing for the respondent.

        In his affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent, the Special Tahsildar,
Land Reforms, inter alia stated that the case was previously entrusted to the
Government Pleader with a request to file appeal; that the Government Pleader
informed them that an appeal was filed into Court and that he will get the
appeal numbered and intimate the stage of the case; that recently, on enquiry
made with regard to the stage of the case, the (successor) Government Pleader
revealed that no appeal is pending before the Court and that as the papers were
not traced by the then Government Pleader, a fresh appeal is being filed. In his
chief-affidavit, G.Siva Rama Krishna, Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, deposed
that on 13.08.2003, the then Government Pleader informed them through Ex.A1-
letter that he has filed an appeal; that the subsequent enquiries made by his
predecessor with the Government Pleader revealed that no appeal was pending and,
hence, a fresh appeal was filed with a delay of 1869 days.  In his cross-
examination, he has deposed as under:
"We have addressed several letters on 17.10.2003, 14.11.2003, 16.2.2004,
17.3.2004 to the G.P. asked (sic asking) him to inform about the stage of
appeal. But the G.P did not send any reply to us.  We had brought to the notice
of Collector about letters sent to the G.P. and non receipt of reply from him.
The District Collector also addressed letters to the previous G.P on 20.7.2004.
The successor G.P by name P.L.Eeswar Reddy had informed us through a letter  
dated 19.7.2004 saying that no appeal had been filed by the previous G.P. On
receiving that information immediately we have filed this petition along with
the appeal."
                                                               (emphasis added)

        The appellate Tribunal, in its order, has not adverted to the cross-
examination of PW.1 at all. It has placed reliance on Ex.A1-letter, dated
13.08.2003, and some correspondence exchanged between the parties.  The  
appellate Tribunal observed that it cannot be ignored that the appeal cannot be
filed by the Government directly, but it has to depend upon the services of the
Government Pleader and that it is clear from the evidence of PW.1 that there was
an effort made by the respondent to entrust the file to the previous Government
Pleader and that they could not know whether the appeal was filed or not till
the new Government Pleader had informed them about the non filing of the appeal.
       
The law is well settled that while considering the application for condonation
of delay, the Courts shall not make a rigid approach.  The Courts also
recognized the inherent disadvantages, which the State suffers in pursuing
litigation, and have also been adopting some what liberal approach while dealing
with the applications filed by the State and its Officers for condonation of
delay.  It, however, needs to be noted that long delays cause untold hardship to
the opposite parties in adversarial litigation. While some latitude certainly
needs to be shown especially in favour of the State and its Officers, the
liberal approach should not eventually lead to harassment of the opposite party.
From the admissions made by PW.1, it is evident that even after the successor
Government Pleader has informed them through his letter, dated 19.07.2004, that
no appeal was filed as was earlier held out by the previous Government Pleader,
the respondent failed to file appeal till July, 2006.  This means, the
respondent has kept quiet for two long years even after he was informed by the
Government Pleader that no appeal was filed. There is absolutely no explanation
whatsoever forthcoming from the respondent for this enormous delay in filing the
appeal.  The appellate Tribunal has lost sight of this crucial aspect in
condoning the abnormal delay of 1869 days in filing the appeal.  This case has
already witnessed change of one generation.  The original declarant died and the
petitioners have come on record in his place. Already 35 years had elapsed from
the starting point of the litigation.  Any latitude shown at this stage in
favour of the respondent would lead to further prolongation of the litigation
for many more years. In the light of these facts, I am of the opinion that the
respondent miserably failed to offer satisfactory explanation for condonation of
huge delay and the appellate Tribunal has committed a serious error in condoning
the delay.

        For the abovementioned reasons, the order of the appellate Tribunal is set
aside and the Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, allowed. As a sequel,
CRPMP.No.6525 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous.


_______________________  
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J    
21.03.2012

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515