PUNJAB STATE Vs. KULTAR CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order of first Appellate Court rejecting the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in belated filing of the appeal by the appellant/petitioners.

(2.) IN the application for condonation of delay, it was stated that the advice from the Legal Remembrancer to file the appeal was received by the General Manager, Punjab Roadways on December 15, 1988 On receipt of the advice, the appeal was filed on December 16, 1988. The Appellate Court rejected the application only on the ground that non- receipt of the advice from the Legal Remembrancer before the expiry of limitation would not entitle the petitioners to claim the benefit of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

(3.) THE approach of the first Appellate Court is not just. The State has to act through various functionaries. Till the Legal Remembrancer grants the permission to the concerned department of the State to file appeal against a particular order/judgment, the department can not of their own file the appeal. In the instant cause, the delay was occasioned because the Legal Remembrancer took sufficient time to give opinion in the matter and grant sanction to the concerned department to file the appeal. No negligence can be attributed to the petitioners. The petitioners acted with promptitude and filed the appeal on the day following the day the Legal Remembrancer opinion was received. Sufficient cause was down by the petitioners fur not filing the appeal within time. On these circumstances of the instant case, the delay ought to have been condoned. Refusal to condone the delay has resulted in mis-carriage of justice because the lis inter parties will not be adjudicated upon on merits but infact will go in default marely because the petitioners did not file the appeal within time. As observed earlier, the delay was occasioned not for any lapse on their part but for not receiving the advice from the Legal Remembrancer within time.