TEJU Vs. BHADAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case illustrates how a hyper technical approach to a case without regard to the realities of life and the primary consideration of doing substantial justice results in failure to exercise jurisdiction vested by law in the court and consequently causes miscarriage of justice.

(2.) An appeal preferred by the appellant herein in the District Court was dismissed for default on Sept. 5, 1985. An application for restoration of the appeal was filed on Nov. 18, 1985. The application was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation and there was a delay of about 44 days in the presentation of the application. The appellant stated in the application that the intimation with regard to the dismissal of the appeal was conveyed by his counsel under a letter dated Oct. 30, 1985 which reached him only an Nov. 10, 1985, and that he had instituted the application soonest thereafter. The application was dismissed primarily on the ground that it was barred by limitation and that no sufficient cause for condoning the delay was made out. The absence of the appellant and his counsel at the hearing of the appeal and the delayed presentation of the application for restoration were regarded as indicative of the fact that the appellant was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. The attempt on his part to seek restoration of the appeal was considered as a mere attempt to keep the litigation alive and thus an abuse of the process of the court.

(3.) The precise grounds which weighed with the Lower Appellate Court in taking the aforesaid view may be set-out in its own words :