UNION OF INDIA Vs. MOHAN LAL JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN usual course we are faced with controversies mostly on a straight line. Seldom, we face problem with multiple twist. The present case would have a blue moon situation. If we look to the pleadings we would find an appeal preferred by Union of India being barred by 3506 days being almost ten years. Ordinarily, the Court of law would not touch it being delayed by a decade. However if one goes to the route he would find a complex twist. It is well-settled principle of law, to consider an application for condonation of delay, the Court should ordinarily not look to the facts. Here, in the midst of hearing of the application we find, to effectively dispose of the application for condonation, the Court would have to go into the facts of the case. At the end of it they might come to a conclusion that would not only dispose of the application for condonation but also the appeal itself. Hence, we permitted the parties to address us not only on the application for condonation but also on the merits of the appeal. We permitted the parties to do so not only for ends of justice but also for our benefit to have a glance of the entire situation while dispensing justice, otherwise we would be failing in our duty. In this backdrop, we proceed to decide the issue.

(2.) FEW dates would be relevant. To find out the genesis of the controversy we look way back in 1992, when Union of India invited tender for construction of workshop building at Ichapur. After the consideration of the tenders submitted for the purpose, the authority accepted the offer of the respondent on January 29, 1993. The authority subsequently entrusted the job through work order issued on February 22, 1993. The contractor was supposed to complete the work within one year. After various extensions being given up to 1996, the work was completed belatedly, as per the record actual date of completion as agreed and acknowledged by the parties was February 26, 1996. The dispute arose as to the settlement of final bill. The authority paid the amount as according to them payable on March 31, 1997 that the contractor did not agree.

(3.) VIDE order dated April 29, 2003 the learned District Judge dismissed the application under Section 34 by observing, the said Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 34 in view of the provisions of Section42. The authority accepted the said decision and approached this Court by filing a fresh petition under Section 34. Vide judgment and order dated October 18, 2012 the learned Single Judge dismissed the said application as not maintainable on the ground, the application was delayed. It would be profitable to quote few paragraphs of the said judgment and order and make it a part of this judgment:-