ABDUL AZIZ MIR Vs. SUHAIL NABI & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated 12th of October, 2017, passed by the learned single Judge in COD No. 105/2015, whereby the condonation of delay application filed by the appellant seeking condonation of delay in filing the civil first appeal against the judgment and decree dated 24th of June, 1997, passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge at Srinagar, has been rejected.

(2.) The brief facts leading to the filing of the instant appeal, put in a nutshell, are that the appellant, being aggrieved of the judgment and decree dated 24th of June, 1997, passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Srinagar, challenged the same, in an appeal, before the learned single Bench of this Court. The appeal, being time barred, compelled the appellant to file an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the same. The learned single Bench, on appreciation of the facts and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, vide judgment dated 12th of October, 2017, has rejected condonation of delay application in filing the appeal.

(3.) Mr Reshi, the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant, submits that the order under challenge is bad in law as the remedies availed by the appellant were not alternate remedies available to him under the law, but the same are concurrent and independent in nature and, therefore, he was free to avail these remedies, simultaneously, and that the doctrine of election was not applicable to the facts of this case. The learned counsel further submits that the learned single Bench, in terms of the impugned order, has only decided the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal and, therefore, there is no question of merger of the decision of the condonation of delay application and that of the main appeal. The learned counsel has also proceeded to state that the order impugned, dismissing the condonation of delay application, does not come within the purview of Section 100(A) of the Civil Procedure Code. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel has made reference to various judicial pronouncements ruling the roost on the subject.