SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER Vs. I C KOTI REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .An application under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act has been decided by the Subordinate Court on 2nd May, 1997. This has been challenged by way of a revision. The revision has been filed on 11th March, 1998. It is stated that there is a delay of 189 days in presentation of the revision and an application for condonation of delay has also been filed.

(2.) . I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner in the application seeking condonation of delay. It is stated in the affidavit filed by the Executive Engineer that the judgment was pronounced on 2-5-1997 and on coming to know from the Assistant Government Pleader that the judgment was delivered he requested to apply for certified copy and the Asst. Government Pleader applied for it on 21st August, 1997. From this assertion it is clear that more than three months time was lost only for making the application for certified copy. If the judgment was pronounced on 2-5-1997 why was application not made till 21st August, 1997? No explanation has been given. On 15th October 1997 according to the affidavit the Assistant Government Pleader handed over the judgment to the Executive Engineer. Then, he states that opinion was sought from the Government Pleader on 6-11-1997. Another twenty days were lost from receiving the copy till sending it for getting opinion. These 20 days delay has also not been explained. Opinion was given by the Government Pleader on the same day, but it was again sent for another opinion on 11-11-1997 to the Government Pleader in the High Court. He also was prompt to give his opinion on 14-11-1997. Then, it is stated in the affidavit that from 25-11-1997 to 1-3-1998 the post of Executive Engineer in the division was vacant c and therefore the revision could not be filed. What has been done from 25th November, 1997 has not been explained. It is also not stated that when the post of Executive Engineer of a division was vacant was the division closed down? It is not possible to accept that if the post of Executive Engineer was vacant in a division that division did not do any work for a period of four months. Therefore, the explanation that since the Executive Engineer's post was vacant the revision could not be filed is neither sufficient nor reasonable, therefore it cannot be accepted. There is another facet of the case. After the revision was presented on llth March, 1998 it had been returned by the registry for removing the deficiency, then it was presented on 25th July, 1998, again it was returned on llth August, 1998 when it was presented back on 3rd September, 1998. So, the delay in re-presenting the file for about five months has also not been explained.

(3.) . The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Courts need to be liberal in entertaining the petitions for condoning the delay particularly made by the Government in view of various judgments of the Supreme Court. He relies on a judgment reported in N. Balakrishnan vs. M, Krishnamurthy. The facts of the case before the Supreme Court were altogether different than the present case. In that case the delay of 883 days was condoned by Supreme Court but it had been proved that the litigant himself had taken all the measures to approach the Court in time and it was because of the negligence on the part of the Advocate concerned the delay had been caused. The litigant concerned had filed even a claim petition before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and had succeeded in getting an award against the Advocate of Rs. 50,000 /-. Therefore, the law laid down by the Supreme Court in that judgment is not at all applicable to the present case. The learned Counsel has also relied on a judgment in State of Haryana vs. Chandra Mani and others. In this case, the Supreme Court held: