TRILOK CHAND SAINI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter is placed on the board on the application of the appellant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed for condonation of delay of 197 days. On the notice to the respondents of this application. Shri S.C. Purohit, Dy. Government Advocate, but appearance on their behalf and strongly opposed the application. He filed reply to the application also on 8-5-2003 after completion of the arguments.

(2.) At the outset, it is not gainsay to state and of which judicial notice can also be taken that almost all the appeals filed on behalf of the State of Rajasthan are presented after expiry of the prescribed period of limitation. When it is the position of the State of Rajasthan. we fail to see how far it is justified on its part to oppose the application filed by a litigant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short, the Act, 1963) for condonation of delay made in filing of the appeal. It is understandable and this opposition of the State of Rajasthan could have been appreciated where the appeals on its behalf are filed within the prescribed period of limitation. A person who has glass house, it is not expected from him to throw stones on the house of other persons. That what preciously Shri S.C. Purohit, learned Deputy Government Advocate, is making efforts in this case for and on behalf of the State of Rajasthan, It is also a fact of which judicial notice can be taken that invariably in the State appeals which are barred by limitation as a rule the delay is condoned. Shri S.C. Purohit. Deputy Government Advocate, while opposing the application of the appellant has altogether forgotten or oblivious of he fact that the State is a welfare State. State of Rajasthan is not an ordinary litigant and it is not expected from it to oppose an application filed by a litigant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay made in filing of the appeal. At the end of the State of Rajasthan a litigant cannot be non suited on this technical ground that the appeal is barred by limitation. Yet there is another aspect in the matter which needs reference here. The condonation of delay which is there in filing of the appeal filed by a litigant is a matter in between the Court and the litigants. The other side is having little concern because ultimately if the Court is satisfied that the litigant has been prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the limitation, as a rule the delay is to be condoned. From the reply filed to this application on behalf of the State of Rajasthan we are constrained to observe about the sorry state of affairs of the State litigation. This reply is not only badly drafted but it is pleaded therein a proposition which is not accepted by the Honble Supreme Court. It is not the law now as what it was earlier that the litigant has to explain each day delay. This is the old law which has now been altered by their Lordships of the Honble Supreme Court in the catena of decisions.

(3.) Apart from that, even there is no proper construction of sentence in the reply to the application. It is unfortunate that the person who drafted this reply to the application could not draw a distinction between the appeal and the application. The very opening sentence of the reply That the appeal for condonation of delay is vague, incomplete and devoid of facts" is defective. It is not the appeal for condonation of delay. It is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. In para No. 1 of the reply it is stated That the contents of para 1 is not fully admitted and denied. Though the delay has been filed but there is every possibility of dismissing of the appeal. " What does the person who drafted this reply want to convey to the Court, we fail to understand. In para No. 2 it is stated "That the contents of para 2 is not admitted and denied." Is it a proper drafting.