LAWS(APH)-2003-4-29

ELUGU SUDHAKAR Vs. STATE OF A P

Decided On April 08, 2003
ELUGU SUDHAKAR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I.A.No.1470 of 2000 in an unregistered appeal filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 227 days in preferring the appeal was allowed by the order under revision. The reason for the delay is said to be the loss or misplacement of the decree and judgment under appeal by the staff of the respondent i.e., Government of A.P.

(2.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is the loss or misplacement of the certified copies of the judgment and decree is not and cannot be a good ground for condoning the inordianate delay of 227 days because fresh copy application could have been made for copies of judgment and decree. It is his contention that along with the suit, whose decree is sought to be appealed, the trial Court tried and disposed of three other suits, and petitioners filed seeking condonation of delay in preferring appeals against those decrees were dismissed by the same learned judge on the ground that delay was not properly explained, and so the present petition also should have been dismissed. It is his contention that the Court having observed that in matter relating to the State "the employees of the State for the reasons, which cannot be discussed here, and due to impersonal attitude neglect in taking appropriate and immediate steps in the cases" ought not to have condoned the delay when no proper explanation is given.

(3.) The fact that there is possibility of taking another set of copies, when the copies of judgment and decree obtained earlier were misplaced may not be a ground for dismissing the petition for condonation of delay because question of obtaining another set of copies arises only when it is felt that there is no scope of recovering or re-tracing the misplaced copies. Usually, people who misplace the documents or files try to trace them and would not apply for fresh set of copies. Therefore, failure of the respondent in obtaining another set of certified copies of the decree and judgment may not be a ground for dismissal of the petition.