ZUANGTUI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, AIZAWL Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Zochhuana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Rokhum, learned Addl. Advocate General, Mizoram representing the respondent.

(2.) BY this application, under section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Order XLI Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioner has prayed for condonation of delay of 316 days in preferring the appeal. In the said application, it has been stated that the judgment and order was passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kolasib on 16.03.2012 when neither the appellant nor the petitioner was present in the Court. According to the petitioner, he got a copy of the said judgment and order only in the last week of May, 2012 as the same was left in their office letter box and that too, in his absence. According to the petitioner, he was out of station and he was at Guwahati at that time in connection with an arbitration case and thereafter, he had to leave for Delhi on 24.07.2012 for another arbitration case. He came back to Aizawl on 5.08.2012 and again left on 19.08.2012 for Delhi and came back at Aizawl on 26.08.2012. During his stay at Aizawl on 26.08.212 to 6.09.2012, before he left for Kolkata and Delhi, he could manage to engage a lawyer for the purpose of preparation of the appeal and application for condonation of delay but in view of his continual journey from Aizawl to Delhi and Kolkata under compelling circumstances, the appeal could not be preferred in time and the learned counsel also had to take some time in view of the voluminous records of the case. According to the petitioner, because of this compelling circumstances, a delay 316 days has been caused in preferring the appeal. He states that he is not guilty of lapse or negligence and that he was prevented by sufficient cause in presenting the appeal in time.

(3.) THE State respondent has submitted affidavit -in - opposition against the said application for condonation of delay and has denied the statements made by the petitioner on affidavit. Although a wholesale denial has been made by the State respondent, it is difficult to understand as to how the statements of the affidavit -in -opposition submitted on behalf of the State respondent may be personally aware as to the circumstances, under which the petitioner was compelled to undertake journeys repeatedly from Aizawl to Guwahati, Kolkota and New Delhi and so on. The denial of the case alleged in condonation of delay, therefore, appears to be more formal than real. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Zochhuana has placed reliance of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another Vs - Mst. Katiji and others, 1987 AIR(SC) 1353 The learned counsel, drew my attention to the paragraph of the said judgment and the same is quoted below : -