HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED Vs. KRISHNA GUPTA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is against the order dated 11.02.2014 passed by the lower Appellate Court, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay of 113 days in filing of the appeal. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the delay has been caused due to administrative exigencies. It is also submitted that the judgment under appeal was reserved by the trial Court and no date was fixed for its pronouncement. The petitioner came to know about the decision after the opening of the Court in January, 2013 that the case has already been decided on 01.12.2012. Thereafter, the copy of the judgment was applied and received, but misplaced and thereafter again a copy was applied on 30.01.2013 and was supplied to their counsel on 16.02.2013. A considerable time was taken by the petitioner's department in taking decision to file the appeal and in that process, delay of 113 days had occurred which was neither intentional nor deliberate.

(2.) After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and examining the record, I am of the considered opinion that there is no merit in his argument much-less the revision petition because the case of the petitioner is that they were not aware of the pronouncement of the judgment, whereas the zimni orders do not show that the case was ever reserved for pronouncement of the order. The case was fixed for rebuttal evidence and the counsel for the petitioner was very much present as his attendance has been marked. The petitioner was not bothered to know about the fate of the case for about one month and did not disclose the date on which the enquiry about the result of the suit was made. There is also no evidence/explanation given to show that it had applied for certified copy of the decree which was misplaced by the copying agency. Since no complaint was ever made by the petitioner against the officials of the copying agency, therefore, the story propounded by the petitioner has been found to be concocted one.

(3.) As a matter of fact, the certified copy was applied by the petitioner on 31.01.2013, after one month of the knowledge of the pronouncement of the judgment and the delay caused in taking decision to file the appeal has not been explained except alleging that it was due to administrative exigencies.