SHAISTA NAAZ Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER dated 31st December 2007 is called in question in this revision petition. The 1st Appellate Court vide impugned order has allowed the application for condonation of delay for filing the appeal against the decree and judgment passed by learned Sub Judge (CJM) Srinagar dated 28th June 2005. Learned Sub Judge in a civil suit filed by the petitioner passed decree in the following terms: - "Accordingly the suit of the plaintiff is decreed and the plaintiff is declared to be entitled for regularisation with respective effect and defendants are permanently restrained not to dispense with the service of the plaintiff except in accordance with law and further a decree for mandatory injunction is also passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants commanding upon the defendants to implement the order no. 209 of 2001 dated 20.04.2001 in letter and spirit and to pay all service benefits to the plaintiff and issue formal orders of regularisation in her favour. No orders as the costs of the suit file be consigned to records after due completion."

(2.) BEING aggrieved of the said decree and judgement, an appeal came to be filed. The appeal having been filed beyond the period of limitation, an application was filed seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The application alongwith appeal it appears was transferred to the court of Additional District Judge Srinagar. In the application condonation of delay for filing the appeal, copy whereof has been placed on the record of this revision petition. It is inter alia pleaded that the appellant 1 and 2 were not properly served by the trial court. It is further pleaded in the application that though the appellant no. 2 was not served by the trial court still ex -parte proceedings were initiated and decree passed in ex -parte. It is further pleaded in the application that the appellants had not engaged or authorized any person, agent, official or advocate to cause appearance on their behalf before the trial court. It has been further pleaded that notwithstanding this fact that appellant no. 2 had not filed any written statement, still the trial court had taken notice of written statement ascribed to appellant no. 2. It has been further pleaded in the application that the same issue was brought by the present petitioner before this Court in a writ petition and stand was taken by the appellants before this court that the present petitioner is not covered by SRO 64 of 1994. It has been further pleaded that after getting knowledge of the decree and judgment appellant

(3.) AND 4 brought the matter to the knowledge of the law department who advised to challenge the impugned decree and judgment in an appeal. It has been further pleaded that the delay in filing the appeal was because of departmental wrangling and delay in filing the same was neither deliberate nor intentional. Objections were filed to this application by the present petitioner controverting the pleadings made by the appellants in the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 3. Learned Appellate Court in terms of the impugned order, however, allowed the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal subject to payment of Rs. 2000/ - (two thousand).