SHRI DHAN BAHADUR MASTER Vs. DAISY DIENGDOH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner submits that an appeal bearing FAO. No. 1 of 2014 was filed before the learned District Judge cum Additional Deputy Commissioner, Nongpoh alongwith Misc. Case No. 1 of 2014. The prayer in the said Misc. Case No. 1 of 2014 was to condone the delay of 303 days, but the same was not considered by the then District Judge and prays to quash the impugned order dated 30.09.2014 which is at Annexure -19 of the writ petition.

(2.) The learned Sr. counsel further contended that the learned court below passed the said impugned order dated 30.09.2014 without applying the mind and without considering the merit of the case and prayed that the said impugned order dated 30.09.2014 may be set aside and the matter may be remand back to the learned District Judge, Nongpoh to try the appeal on merit, to which Mr. T.T. Diengdoh, learned Sr. counsel for the respondent has no objection.

(3.) I have perused the impugned order dated 30.09.2014 and after perusal of the same, I have noticed that the learned court below while deciding the condonation petition i.e. Misc. Case No. 1 of 2014 noted that the petitioner could not satisfy or could not explain the delay upto the satisfaction of the court. The word "Satisfaction" to the court differs from case to case and from court to court. It is very wide in terms. One thing may be satisfied to my mind, but it might not be satisfactory upto the satisfaction of another person. Therefore, while deciding any condonation petition, it is always necessary to examine the merit of the subject matter or the question actually involved in the appeal. If there is any merit found in the appeal, in my considered view the delay should be condoned.