DY SECRETARY HOME Vs. A NARASIMHA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for both parties. This is an application to condone the delay of 439 days in filing the appeal. The suit is filed by the respondent for declaration that he is a freedom fighter and for arrears of pension, for grant of Acs.5-00 of wet land or Acs.10-00 of dry land and for grant of railway pass along with a companion. It appears that as the defendants failed to put in appearance despite service of notices, the suit was decreed ex parte on 26-12-1997. The petitioner-appellant i.e., the Ministry of Home Affairs, Central Government, New Delhi, who figures as the first defendant in the suit, has filed the present appeal with a petition for condonation of delay stating that on receipt of notice, it addressed the State Government to defend the suit and also sent para-wise remarks for preparing the pleadings. However, the State Government failed to take any action with the result the suit was decreed ex parte. It is further stated that the petitioner came to know about the judgment and decree of the lower Court only on receipt of a letter from the respondent along with a photo copy of the judgment and decree in the matter. On receipt of the same, the State Government was requested to obtain a certified copy of the decree and judgment but there was no response. Thereupon the matter was referred to the Central Government Standing Counsel for legal advice and as per the advice tendered by the Counsel, the appeal was filed with a delay of 439 days.

(2.) The respondent filed a counter opposing the petition and stating inter alia that prior to the filing of the suit, he applied for grant of freedom-fighter's pension to the Government of India in 1972-73 with all original jail certificates and the petitioner has full knowledge of the suit in the year 1992 itself when the notices were served upon him on the application filed for permitting the respondent to file the suit as an indigent person. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that after the decree was passed, the respondent addressed a letter dated 30-12-1997 enclosing a copy of the judgment dated 26-12-1997, for sanction of freedom fighter's pension in compliance with the judgment. It is further stated that the Deputy Speaker of the A.P. Legislative Assembly wrote a D.O. letter dated 31-1-1998 to the Union Minister for Home Affairs marking a copy to the petitioner herein with a request to consider his case for sanctioning the freedom-fighter's pension. In response to this the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs by letter dated 4-3-1998 informed the Hon'ble Deputy Speaker that his case was under consideration. Likewise he received a letter dated 1-4-1998 from the Prime Minister's Office informing him that his case was referred to the Ministry of Home Affairs for consideration. Finally on 6-1-1999 he received a letter from the petitioner herein stating that an appeal was already filed in the High Court against the judgment of the trial Court. But no such appeal was filed and the present appeal was filed long afterwards i.e., 8-6-1999. The explanation offered for the delay is neither true nor valid.

(3.) Even assuming that the petitioner had no knowledge about the judgment and decree of the trial Court prior to the receipt of the letter addressed by the respondent on 30-12-1997 which was admittedly received by the petitioner, there is no satisfactory explanation for the subsequent delay. The affidavit filed in support of the petition is vague. It is not stated as to when the State Government was addressed to obtain a copy of the judgment and decree or when exactly a copy application was made. No details of the alleged correspondence between the petitioner and the Standing Counsel are also given in the affidavit. Further the assertion in the reply dated 6-1-1999 addressed by the Under-Secretary to the Government of India to the respondent that an appeal was already filed in the High Court is obviously false as no such appeal was filed. May be they were contemplating to file an appeal but, in fact, no such appeal was filed. The respondent is now aged 74 years. The suit was filed in the year 1992 informa pauperies. Prior to filing the suit the respondent applied for freedom-fighter's pension enclosing the relevant certificates. In the trial Court the respondent appears to have filed as many as 27 documents, which were marked as exhibits, in support of his claim. On consideration of the said documents, the trial Court decreed the suit. In the normal circumstances, as this is a matter involving public funds, I would have been inclined to condone the delay. But having regard to the above facts and circumstances, I do not find any valid grounds to condone the inordinate delay of 43.9 days in filing the present appeal. The application is accordingly dismissed.