DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. BASU DEV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for condonation of delay of 65 days in filing the appeal. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy, AIR 1998, Supreme Court 3222 that once there is a delay in filing, some amount of negligence is always there, however the issue is whether there is such amount of negligence or want of inaction that the delay cannot be condoned. Since the delay is of only 65 days and as has been held by the Supreme Court in various judgments that certain extra leeway should be given where Government Departments are concerned, therefore, I do not find that the delay of 65 days is so huge that the same ought not to be condoned. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. The challenge by means of this Regular Second Appeal is to the impugned judgment of the Appellate Court dated 6.5.2010, and by which judgment the Appellate Court set aside the judgment of the first Court/original Court dated 19.7.2008, and by which judgment dated 19.7.2008 the Trial Court had dismissed the suit for declaration filed by the respondent/plaintiff with respect to change of date of birth.

(2.) BEFORE entertaining a second appeal, it is necessary that a substantial question of law be formulated. The substantial question of law which is formulated therefore is as under:-

(3.) A reference to the judgment of the Appellate Court shows that the categorical conclusions as given by the Trial Court have almost been glossed over. I used this term because almost in a routine manner the important findings of forgery and fabrication of the Trial Court have been dealt with by the Appellate Court in the following language:-