UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH DEPUTY CHIEF COMMERCIAL SUPERINTENDENT, N.R., NEW DELHI Vs. MEHTA PHARMACUTICALS (P) LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCORDING to the provisions of Section 39 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as they then were, an appeal from a decree of a Subordinate Judge lay to the District Judge, where the value of the original suit, in which the decree was passed, did not exceed Rs. 10,000/ - and in other cases to the High Court. By an amendment of the Act which came into effect on July 21, 1975, this figure of Rs. 10,000/ - for appeals to the District Judge was changed to Rs. 20,000/ -. The result being that the forum for appeals from decrees where the value of the original suit was between Rs. (sic) and Rs. 20,000/ - got shifted from the High Court to the District Judge. The controversy that now arises is with regard to the effect that this had upon the limitation for filing of appeals against decrees falling in this category, namely there of the value of Rs. 10,000/ - to Rs. 20,000/ - which had been passed before this amendment came into force, as the limitation for the filing of an appeal before the District Judge was 30 days while that to the High Court is 90 days.

(2.) TURNING to the case here, on January 31, 1975 the Subordinate Judge passed a decree of Rs. 18311/ - against the Union of India. In order to appeal against it, a copy of this judgment and decree was applied for on February 3, 1975 which was prepared on June 27, 1975 and delivered to the counsel for the Union of India on July 7, 1975. As the value of the suit exceeded Rs. 10,000/ -, the appeal then lay to the High Court and 90 days was the limitation for filing it, the last date of limitation being September 23, 1975.

(3.) IT will be seen that if the limitation for the filing of the appeal is to be taken to be 90 days, the appeal filed on August 5, 1975 would be well within time, but not if the limitation was 30 days, in which event the question to be considered would be whether there was sufficient cause for the condonation of the delay in the filing of the appeal.