STATE OF H.P. Vs. RAJINDER KUMAR THAPAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks admission of the present petition on the ground that the order dated 1.6.1999 passed by the learned District Judge, Shimla, dismissing the application of the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 31.3.1997 of the learned Sub Judge (1), Shimla is contrary to the settled principles of law and is injudicious.

(2.) I have heard the learned Additional Advocate General for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent and have also gone through the relevant records.

(3.) It is expedient to briefly refer to the facts leading to the presentation of the petition. The respondent instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 73,244.99 on account of damages caused to his land and apple trees by the Public Works Department during the construction of Pandli -Pungrish road in the year 1985. The suit was contested by the petitioner but was finally decreed by the learned trial Judge on 31.3.1997. The State filed an appeal against the said judgment and decree in the court of learned District Judge, Shimla on 18.2.1998 much after the expiry of the period of limitation, therefore, an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was also presented. The delay was sought to be explained on the grounds that the petitioner came to know about the passing of the impugned judgment and decree dated 31.3.1997 on 16.1.1998 when one R.S. Jhangta was deputed to procure the certified copies of the judgment and decree which were received on 17.1.1998. Thereafterthe matterwas processed at various levels and in the meanwhile the Court of District Judge was closed for winter vacations. Thereafter, on the opening day i.e. on 18.2.1998 the appeal was filed. The learned District Judge after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that there is no ground, leave alone a sufficient ground, for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and accordingly dismissed the application for condonation of delay vide impugned order dated 1.6.1999. Hence, the present revision petition.