IQBAL BAHADUR SAKSENA Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LIST has been revised. Learned Counsel for the petitioner is present. None is present on behalf of the respondents. The case of the petitioner is that he is landlord of the house No. 4 Mohalla Puran Mal District Pilibhit and the respondent No. 2 is the tenant thereof whose tenancy was terminated after notice and a Suit No. 49 of 1980 was filed in the Court of Civil judge Small Causes Court Pilibhit for ejectment of the respondent No. 2. The suit was decreed ex parte on 13.10.1980. The respondent No. 2 moved two restoration applications both of which were rejected by the Court below. The said rejection attained finality since the same was not challenged by the respondent No. 2 in the higher Court. The respondent No. 2 it is alleged filed a Suit No. 101 of 1981 in the Court of Civil Judge Pilibhit against the petitioner for permanent injunction and it was also prayed that the decree in the Suit No. 49 of 1980 be declared null and void. The aforesaid suit was decreed by the Additional Munsif Pilibhit on 26.2.1982. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the aforesaid decree dated 26.2.1982 which was beyond time by 18 days and therefore, he filed an application alongwith affidavit annexing thereto a medical certificate regarding his illness and prayed that the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned. The Appellate Court by means of the impugned judgment and order dated 2.12.1982 passed in Misc. Case No. 12 of 1982 has rejected the application for condonation of delay, consequently the appeal has been dismissed as time barred.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was ill and to that effect he had filed a medical certificate in proof of his illness. The view taken by the Court below that there ought to have been some other evidence apart from medical certificate according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner is not in accordance with law.

(3.) A medical certificate is the only best evidence which a party can produce before the Court with respect to his illness. A certificate issued by registered medical practitioner is sufficient proof unless the certificate is proved to be forged or otherwise. Such an objection was not taken by the respondents before the Court below. There is nothing mentioned in the impugned order as to why the medical certificate was not believed by the Court. The only reason appears to be is that the certificate is not very authentic because no affidavit was filed initially. This cannot be a ground to disbelieve a medical certificate. The impugned order therefore, cannot be sustain in the eyes of law. It is accordingly set aside. The application under section 5 of the Limitation Act may be considered by the Appellate Court afresh and it shall be decided in accordance with law. Since the matter is very old it is expected that the Appellate Court will take a decision on the said application with in two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before it. It is directed that the parties will not be granted undue and unnecessary adjournment while deciding the aforesaid application. In the result the writ petition is allowed. No order is passed as to costs.