STATE OF J&K Vs. AB MAJID WANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this application, Section 5 of the Limitation Act is being attracted into play for condonation of delay with regard to the institution of Letters Patent Appeal No, 66/92 filed beyond the period of limitation by the appellant/applicant,

(2.) THE Letters Patent Appeal is time -barred by about six months and no affidavit has been attached with the application for condonation of delay, in order to support the same, so as to recount the series of facts which have lid to the delay due to time spent at various stages by the Agencies involved into filing of appeal within time.

(3.) THE case as set out by the appellant/applicant in application dated 26 -5 -1992 for condonation of delay in filing the Letters Patent Appeal is that the appeal titled State of J&K vs. Abdul Majid Wani could not be filed within the stipulated period of time for the learned Advocate of the appellant did not send the copy of the judgment well in time and the applicant came to know about the judgment when a letter dated 13 -11 -1991 addressed by the respondent to the Advisor to His Excellency the Governor was received on 24 -12 -1991 at Jammu by the appellant alongwith the copy of the uncertified judgment; that after receiving the said letter on 24 -12 -1991 the appellant moved the Law Department for sanction to challenge the impugned judgment in appeal. The Law Department accorded sanction on 9 -3 -1992 and thereafter the appellant approached the learned Advocate who had desired that a copy of the judgment be obtained from the High Court for facilitating him to file the appeal. Accordingly, a letter was sent on 24 -3 -1992 to the Director Rural Development Kashmir for obtaining the copy and sending the same through a special messenger within three days; that appellant did not receive the certified copy of the judgment; that after long correspondence a copy of the judgment was received by the appellant on 13 -5 -1992 and immediately after the receipt of the judgment filed the above mentioned appeal in the court: that there was no deliberate intention or attempt on the part of the appellant to cause delay in filing the appeal but a long time was consumed by the Director Rural Development Kashmir for getting a copy from the High Court and for these reasons sufficient grounds are provided for condonation of delay.