LAWS(GAU)-1993-8-21

THE MEGHALAYA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. AMBUNATH CHOUDHURY CRANS OPERATOR GR. 1, (MECHANICAL SUB-DIVISION) M.S.E.B. SUMER),

Decided On August 23, 1993
The Meghalaya State Electricity Board Appellant
V/S
Ambunath Choudhury Crans Operator Gr. 1, (Mechanical Sub -Division) M.S.E.B. Sumer), Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is directed against the Judgment and decree dated 19.12.92 passed by the District Judge, Shillong, in Title Civil Appeal No. 2 (H) 92. The Respondents had instituted a suit (TS No. 7 (H) 82) in the Court of the Munsiff, Shillong praying for a decree for declaration that the Appellant was entitled to be promoted to the rank of spl. Gr. -l Crane Operator and also for injunction directing the Defendant, namely, the Appellant to promote the Respondent to the rank of Spl. Gr -1. The Appellant - M.S.E.B. entered appearance and filed written statement. Issues were framed and after recording the evidence of the witnesses on behalf of both sides, the suit was decreed as prayed for, Against that Appellant preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Shillong (Title Civil) Appeal No. 2 (H) 92. However, the appeal was filed after expiry of the period of limitation. Along with the said appeal, a petition for condonation of delay was also filed by the Appellant explaining the delay. The District Judge admitted the appeal and issued notice. The 1st Respondent entered appearance in the said appeal and filed a petition stating, inter -alia, that the appeal was filed after expiry of the period of limitation without any sufficient cause and, therefore, the appeal should be dismissed. On the objection filed by the 1st Respondent, the matter was taken up for hearing by the District Judge and the District Judge after hearing the parties, rejected the appeal on the ground of delay. Hence, the second appeal.

(2.) THIS appeal was admitted on 29.4.92 without formulating any substantial questions of law.

(3.) I have gone through the impugned Judgment and decree. On the basis of the rival contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the parties, it is to be seen whether the impugned order is sustainable in law, Admittedly the appeal was filed about 164 days after expiry of the period of limitation.