SHITALDIN Vs. SHAMBHOO DAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Facts Are : A partition suit of plaintiff Shambhoo Dayal and others is decreed on 27-2-1984 Shital Din lodges an appeal in Commissioner's. On 22-11-1985 Additional Commissioner enters an order allowing the appeal ; the suit is remanded to lower court for decision afresh in accordance with directions. Aggrieved by this judgment, second appeal is filed by Shital Din on 18-9-1991. The appeal is obviously barred by time as relay is of five years and 7 months or thereabouts. An application is moved by appellant Shital Din to condone the delay in filing the appeal beyond prescribed limitation of 90 days.

(2.) Heard counsel for parties on this point alone.

(3.) In the application it has been set forth that decree of Additional Commissioner was passed on 22-11-1985 but was actually prepared on 11-3-1987. So appellant was running to Commissioner's to find out whether decree has been prepared to enable him to lodge second appeal. How I would wish that Shital Din should step his running to re-think that court has no imperative to prepare a decree unless a party moves an application for its preparation. Appellant moves on 3-9-1991 then alone the obligation to prepare the decree arose and it become ready on 9-9-1991, as documented in the copy of decree. What is the reasons of delay from 22-11-1985 to 3-9-1991 a delay of over five parts. This gross negligence is Shital Din's. It appears his sophistication has not reached a point when he should think it dishonourable to transfer his own laps to staff of the court. He had his legal remedies. Order XX, Rule 6-A (2), reads as under