NAHIM BERO Vs. JOHAR SINGH NEUOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.4.1983 passed by the Assistant District Judge No. 1, Gauhati dismissing the title appeal No. 27/81 as time-barred.

(2.) The facts of the case are as follows :

(3.) I have heard Mr. N.S. Deka, learned counsel for the appellant and also perused the judgment of the learned Assistant District Judge No. 1, Gauhati dismissing the appeal as barred by limitation. I have also considered the grounds for condonation of delay put forward by the appellant. It appears that there was sufficient cause for the delay which might justify condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The Assistant District Judge took a very strict view in the matter and rejected the petition for condonation. I find that the approach of the Assistant District Judge is not in consonance with the latest decisions of the Supreme Court, more particularly the decision in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji, 1987 AIR(SC) 1353 where it was held "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay ? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner."