STATE OF HARYANA Vs. OM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed challenging order dated 10.5.2012, whereby, application moved by the State for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was rejected. Learned State counsel has submitted that initially the District Attorney had given the opinion that no appeal was liable to be filed. However, the Legal Remembrancer opined that the appeal should be filed and due to this reason, the delay in filing the appeal occurred and was liable to be condoned.

(2.) Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the petition and has submitted that the State was bent upon harassing the respondent. Trial Court had rightly decreed the suit of the respondent. The State had failed to explain the delay in filing the appeal.

(3.) In the present case, respondent had filed a suit for declaration that he was liable to be regularized w.e.f. 1.12.1989. Suit filed by the respondent was decreed by the trial Court vide judgment/decree dated 21.10.2011. Aggrieved against the said judgment/decree, State preferred an appeal. Along with the appeal, an application was filed by the State for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Vide the impugned order dated 10.5.2012, application filed by the State seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal was dismissed.