PANKAJ HARIBHAI SHARMA Vs. ALIMAMAD RAHEMTULA SHEKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal as many as nine objections are pointed out. The first objection is that on the memo of appeal proper and full court fee has not been paid. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that on the memo of appeal court fee of only Rs.10.00 is to be paid as the valuation of the appeal is less than Rs.9,000.00. There is another objection that this appeal is barred by 227 days. The appellant filed civil application No.9193 of 1998 and prayer has been made for condonation of delay caused in filing of this appeal. Filing of this application for condonation of delay would unnecessarily cause extra expenses to the poor litigants and this prayer can be made or incorporated in the appeal itself. Be that as it may. In para 4 of the civil application the appellant, a minor, who was injured in a motor vehicular accident, has furnished the explanation for this delay in filing of the appeal, which is as under:

(2.) I am constrained to observe that despite holding of legal literacy camps through out the State regularly, and I have been told that on 2nd October, 1998 - the birth day of Mahatma Gandhi - more than 2000 legal literacy camps were held, through out the State, we totally failed to literate the persons who are really in need of legal services. But if we go by the number of literacy camps which are being held from time to time the figures are alarming and I mayvery frankly say that it provides good statistical figure to be placed in beautiful glass frames or carved on brass. If the number of legal literacy camps is the only consideration, then this programme maybe 100% successful. I had occasion to attend some of the legal literacy camps. I have my own reservation, and I frankly concede, that these are only shows which we organise, but substantially not doing anything to achieve the object and purpose behind these camps.

(3.) In this court I have seen that the percentage of litigants praying for grant of permission to file appeal as indigent person is sufficiently high. I have observed in many of the cases that if such high number of litigants come before this Court praying for permission to file appeal as indigent persons then there is some defect or lacuna in our this programmes. To a considerable extent we fail to pas on the message to the needy persons and to awaken them or to literate them that there is an Authority which provides free legal aid to a category of persons. This is the case where we are unable to awaken and give message to the needy litigants who are unable to file appeal for want of funds for meeting the expenditure.