RAM KUMAR CONSTABLE Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide order dated 18.9.1992, subordinate Judge, First Class, Patiala dismissed the plaintiff appellant's suit for declaration. Plaintiff-appellant went in appeal. Appeal was bared by limitation. Plaintiff appellant moved an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of 18 days delay. This appeal was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Patiala vide order dated 27.10.1995 and refused to condone delay in the filing of the appeal. Plaintiff appellant has assailed this order of Additional District Judge, Patiala dated 27.10.1995 through this revision.

(2.) Delay in the filing of appeal before Additional District Judge, Patiala should have been condoned by him. It was alleged by Ram Kumar in his application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act that Shri P.S. Dang, Advocate was counsel for him before the trial Court. He applied for certified copies of the judgment and decree on 24.9.1992 which was prepared on 16.10.1992. Those were collected by Shri P.S. Dang, Advocate's Clerk on 17.10.1992 for filing the appeal. Rs. 1,000/- was settled with the said Advocate as his fee. He was called on 3.11.1992 for signing the grounds of appeal. When he came to the said Advocate in district Courts on 3.11.1992, he demanded Rs. 5,500/- as his fee. He showed his inability to pay him the said fee. He demanded the return of the brief of the case as well as certified copies of the judgment and decree from him. He refused to return him the certified copies of the judgment and decree. He handed over the brief of the case to him. If he had got the certified copies of the judgment and decree from that Advocate, he would have presented the appeal in time.

(3.) State of Punjab contested this application urging that they have nothing to do with this situation. There is no reason to condone delay of 18 days in filing the appeal. How could this application be accepted without the examination of Shri P.S. Dang, Advocate by him. To my mind, if he had examined Shri P.S. Dang, Advocate, he would have gone against him. Applicant stated before the Court all the facts. Why should the plaintiff have not filed the appeal within time when there was no gain to him in filing the appeal beyond time. He was constable in the Punjab Armed Police having been enrolled on 22.3.1990. His name had been approved for admission to list B-1. He was selected to undergo Lower School Course at PTC, Phillaur. He passed the said course. As per him, he was entitled for admission in list C-1 and for promotion as officiating Head Constable along with back wages when he had passed Lower School Course at PTC Phillaur. His name was not considered due to the pendency of the inquiry and the names of his juniors were approved for list C-1 w.e.f. 1.10.1987. As per him, he was falsely implicated in a departmental inquiry for consuming liquor and after inquiry, one year service on temporary basis was forfeited and it was ordered that he would not get more than what he had already received during the period of suspension. He filed suit for declaration praying that he was entitled to the inclusion of his name in list C-1 and for promotion as officiating Head Constable with his batch mates. Plaintiffs suit was dismissed. Notification through which he had claimed relief the grant of which would have given him rise in his service career and the refusal of which defused his service career, why should the plaintiff have not hurried up in instituting the appeal