UNION OF INDIA Vs. SANDHU SONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Misc. case is so filed in connection with M.A.F. No. 223/98 so preferred by the petitioner/appellants Union of India making a prayer for condonation of delay of 890 days in preferring the appeal against the order dated 3.2.96 passed by the learned Asstt. District Judge, Jorhat in Misc. (Arbt) 89/94.

(2.) Heard Mr. K.K. Mahanta., learned C.G.S.C. representing the petitioner/appellant.

(3.) All the points so taken as good grounds for condoning the delay are pressed in to service. It is also submitted that, delay in preferring the appeal is sufficiently explained and there was no negligence on the part of the petitioner in making delay in preferring the appeal rather the same could not be filed as the clearance for preferring the appeal was to be taken from different heads of the offices, the offices being located at different places and matter had to pass through so many tables. It is also casually pointed out that even the petitioner has decided as to initiate departmental proceeding against the Erreing personnel in not preferring the appeal in time. In support of this contention the prayer is that a liberal view be taken condoning the delay of 890 days. In this connection Mr Mahanta, learned CGSC has banked upon 3 reported cases and they are 7995 (Suppl) 4 SCC 681 Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation Ltd. and others~Vs-Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 1353 Naubat Ram Sarma-Vs-Addl. District Judge-II Moradabad and AIR 1968 SC 222 Sarpanch Lonand Grampanchayat-Vs- Ramgiri Gosavai and another. By referring to the reported cases it is pointed out that test for determining the sufficiency for not preferring the appeal is whether the factual statement made was probable and acceptable. It is pointed out that the factual statements so made in this condonation petition was very much probable which be accepted condoning the delay and that a liberal approach should be adopted. Mr Mahanta further pointed out that the word sufficient cause as finding place in Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive liberal construction.