STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. SUKHRAJ SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of the C.M. No. 2664-C1/98, 2655-C1/98, 2656-CI/98, 2657-CI/98, 2689-C1/98, 2660-CI/98, 2661-CI/98, 2662-C1/98, 2665-CI/98, 2667-C1/98, 2668-C1/98 in R.F.A. Nos. 2415/98, 2407/98, 2408/98, 2409/98, 2410/98, 2411/98, 2412/98, 2413/98, 2416/98. 2417/98 and 2418/98 respectively. These appeals have been filed against the award made by learned Additional District Judge and the land acquisition references and because there was delay in filing the appeals, the appellant has filed applications for condonation of delay in these cases. Notices were issued to the respondents. The grounds for condonation of delay which are stated by the counsel for the parties can be summarised as under :-

(2.) In the above way, the appellant has explained the delay from 30.6.1995 to 25.5.1998. The question is whether the delay has occurred because of sufficient cause. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied on the case of Punjab State etc. v. Onkar Nath and another1. In that case delay of 350 days was not condoned. It is held that a remedy, when gets barred by time, a definite right is vested in other side. In that case, delay was not explained properly and satisfactorily. He has also cited the case of P.K. Ramchandran v. State of Kerala and another2. In that case, the Supreme Court did not condone the delay of 565 days. It was held that the discretion exercised by the High Court was neither proper nor judicious.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has cited the case of N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy3. In that case, the delay was sufficiently explained and it was rightly condoned but the opposite party was compensated by cost of Rs. 10,000/-.