LAWS(MPH)-2006-9-22

STATE OF M P Vs. RAJIV GUPTA

Decided On September 15, 2006
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appellant
V/S
RAJIV GUPTA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal against the impugned judgment and decree dated 30-4-2005 is barred by limitation as it has been filed 94 days beyond the period of limitation.

(2.) IN the application it has been stated that the Government pleader appearing for the appellants before the Trial Court did not inform the appellants about passing of the judgment and decree. On 26-7-2005 when the appellants got information about the said judgment and decree the application for certified copy was made. The certified copy was received by the appellants on 16-8-2005. Thereafter the matter was sent to the Law Department of the State Govt. for permission to file the appeal. After examination the Law Department granted the permission to file appeal on 28-10-2005. Thereafter, the Officer-in-charge of the case was appointed who contacted the Office of the Advocate General at Jabalpur and after getting the appeal prepared it was filed on 19-11-2005. In support of the application for condonation of delay the appellants have filed affidavit of Officer-in-charge of the case Shri C. P. Nigam, Tehsildar, Capital Project (Nazool) Bhopal.

(3.) THE respondents opposed the application by stating that the grounds stated in the application have not been substantiated by proper reasons. It is also stated that as the application for condonation of delay has not been filed along with the appeal as per provision of Order 41 Rule 3-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appeal itself is not maintainable. The respondents placed reliance on the judgments of this Court to contend that in the absence of filing of the application for condonation of delay at the time of presentation of appeal the appeal itself is not maintaiable. The respondent also relied on an order of this Court passed in case of Geetarani Ghosh v. Bhagwati Bai and Ors. 2006 (2) MPLJ 45 to contend that a valuable right has accrued in favour of the respondents on expiry of limitation which cannot be disturbed on the basis of flimsy, baseless or unexplained grounds.