GAUHATI HIGH COURT EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION Vs. SHYAMAL SAIKIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.12.96 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Rule No. 1447 of 1991. It was filed on 13.8.97 apparently barred by 218 days on appellant's own showing, but as per report dated 18.8.97 submitted by the Stamp Reporter, it was barred by only 61 days and the reason for this obvious . discrepancies in number of days by which it is time barred is not far to see. The appellant is the Association of the Employees of the High Court. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay has been filed and a show cause notice vide order dated 20.8.97 was directed to be issued, accordingly the respondents have entered appearance.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the parties on the question of condonation of delay in filing this appeal.

(3.) We would like to make it clear at the very out set justice oriented approach in the matter of condonation of delay, should ordinarily be adopted by the Courts. But a mere glance of the certified copy of the impugned judgment and order as filed by the appellant and the entries made in the respective columns thereof put us on guards. Copy was applied for on 22.1.97 and the date fixed for notifying the requisite number of stamps and folios was 17.7.97 almost 7 months thereafter, it was on the same day i.e. 17.7.97 that the stamps and folios as required was supplied, the same day, the copy was ready and delivered to the applicant. This gap of 7 months (short of 5 days) WEIS itself something which made us suspicious, we sent for original records from the Copying Section and what was revealed is simple shocking. Sufficient cause for condonation of delay as contemplated by Section 5 is not something to be concocted. The original record clearly shows that a crude interpolation has been made in the entries, the serial number if superimposed and super added by adding the Capital letter "A" to 880 in their zest to help the Association. Those entrusted with the task of issuing certified copies have by their own mis-deed defeated the cause of justice. Howsoever, liberally construed the question of condonation of delay is not to be so extended as to cover up an apparent tampering of record by none else than those who are supposed to guard and maintain the sanctity of the Court record. A mere glance at Entry 880(A) dated 22.1.97 in Copy Petition Register commencing with effect from 17.12.96 to 11.2.97 would reveal that the entries No. 880(A) is a crude patch with all that made on 27.1.97. The difference in overlapping, spacing clearly indicates that the entries had been subsequently made. The Clerk concern who produced the Register on being specifically asked to point out if there is any such interpolated entry in the whole of the Register produced before us, after having gone through the Register stated that there is no such inserted entry as 880(A). The reason behind this gratuitous insertion of Entry 880(A) dated 22.1.97 is not far to seek. The applicant being the Secretary of the High Court Employees' Association, it is upto these employees to see that the records are kept in tact and are not tampered with.