UNION OF INDIA Vs. K D KRISHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the Union of India against an order dated 18.5.1992 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Delhi Bench allowing an application of the respondent/claimant M/s. K.D. Krishan Lal and directing the Union of India to pay a sum of Rs. 17, 111-71 to the respondent/claimant with pendente lite and future interest calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the application till the date of realisation. CM 632/93 is an application filed by the appellant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying for condonation of the delay of 105 days in filing the appeal.

(2.) First I shall consider and dispose of CM 632/93. The application is supported by an affidavit dated 1.2.1993 and an additional affidavit dated 2.2.1995 of Shri K.N. Srivastava, Assistant Commercial Manager (Courts), Northern Railway. According to the appellant/applicant the impugned order of the Railway Claims Tribunal was passed on 18.5.1992. The applicant applied for the certified copy of the impugned order, on 21.5.1992. The certified copy was ready on 27.5.1992. After counting the period in getting the certified copy and the period of 90 days available for filing the appeal, the last date for filing the appeal was 25.8.1992. The appeal was filed only on 7.12.1992. Hence there was a delay of 105 days in filing the appeal. The competent authority, namely, the Deputy Commercial Superintendent (Courts) had decided to file the appeal and on 31.7.1992 the Senior Commercial Officer (Courts) decided to appoint a counsel for filing the appeal. But on .7.1992 Shri Gulshan Rai the clerk dealing with the case happened to be transferred and consequently the file of this case was lying unattended till 14.10.1992 without taking any further action. While sorting out the files the file of this case was found on 14.10.1992 and the same was processed on the same date and ultimately the file and the documents were handed over to the counsel on 19.10.1992 for filing the appeal. Unfortunately the clerk who was well conversant with the facts of the case did not meet the counsel for preparing the appeal. He ultimately met the counsel in the first week of December 1992 and briefed the counsel and thereafter the appeal was drafted and filed on 7.12.1992. According to the applicant/appellant the delay in filing the appeal was unintentional and bona fide. It is contended that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the stipulated period and that the delay deserves to be condoned in the interests of justice.

(3.) According to the respondent also the delay is of 105 days but the respondent has denied the averment that the delay was unintentional and bona fide and that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the stipulated period. It is contended that sufficient particulars are not given by the appellant and that the reasons stated are frivolous. According to the respondent, the appellant has not made out any case for condoning the delay.