HAJI ANSAR ALI Vs. MRS. KHALIDA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri S. Rupachandra, the learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the applicants/appellants and Shri A. Gautam Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1. None is present for the respondent No. 2.

(2.) This is an application filed by the applicants/ appellants praying for condonation of delay of 140 days in preferring the appeal being MAC Appeal No. 2 of 2017 which was preferred against the judgment and award dated 26-08-2016 passed by the MACT, Manipur. The grounds on which the said appeal has been preferred, are that the applicants/appellants were not aware of the judgment and award dated 26-08-2016, as a copy thereof was not furnished to them by their former counsel and only on 21-04-2017 when the payment and release of compensation amount was on the way, the applicants/appellants came to know about the existence of the said judgment and award dated 26-08-2016. After the notice being issued by this court in the application for condonation of delay, the respondent No. 1 entered appearance through her counsel and filed an objection to the said application on the ground that there is no sufficient cause being shown to by the applicants/appellants for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal.

(3.) It has been submitted by Shri S. Rupachandra, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the applicants/appellants that since the delay has been properly explained in the application, the same can be allowed by this court. In order to substantiate his contention, the learned senior counsel appearing for the applicants/appellants has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in K. Rudrappa v. Shivappa reported in 2004 (9) SBR 474 wherein the appellant filed an application for setting abetment as well as an application for condonation of delay in bringing LRs on record on the ground that he was not aware of the pendency of the appeal and came to know about it only when he received a communication from the advocate which were rejected by the District Court and the civil revision petition preferred against it before the Hon'ble High Court also failed. When the matter came up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it has been held that a hyper-technical view ought not to have been taken by the District Court in rejecting the application and such technical objections should not come in doing full and complete justice between the parties. He has placed further reliance in Manoharan v. Sivarajan & ors., (2014) 4 SCC 163 wherein the appellant filed a suit for mandatory injunction; for declaration of the sale deed executed by the respondent No. 1 as null and void; for execution of re-conveyance and consequential relief, for which the appellant paid 1/10th of the court fee. Thereafter, an application for extension of time for payment of the remaining court fee was rejected and against it, an appeal was preferred with condonation of delay which was dismissed on the ground of no proper explanation. The appeal preferred before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of special leave was allowed condoning the delay by holding that it is clear from the evidence on record that the appellant could not pay court fee due to financial difficulty because of which his suit got rejected. It has been observed that it is the duty of the courts to see that justice is meted out to people irrespective of their socio-economic and cultural rights or gender identity.