STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. SUKHDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD . The office has pointed out that the appeal is barred by limitation by 63 days. Application Under Section 5 Limitation Act has been moved for condonation of delay occurred in filing the appeal. It is stated in the application that the second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree granted by the lower appellate court on 7.10.95 after obtaining the certified copies of the judgment and decree dated 7.10.95 and 3.3.94 (passed by the trial court). The same were sent to the Development Department for according sanction. However, the sanction was received late and as soon as the sanction was received, the appeal has been filed in the Court. This is all the explanation for the delay. The application is supported by the affidavit of the officer -in -charge Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Marwar Junction.

(2.) THERE is nothing on record as to when the certified copies obtained were sent to the Department and as to why the sanction could not be accorded within a reasonable time. There is also nothing on record to indicate as to when the sanction was granted and when the papers were sent to the concerned Department for filing an appeal and as to why the papers were not immediately processed after sanction was granted. It is not shown to this Court that the appeal could not be presented within the period of limitation inspite of due reasonable steps were taken in the matter. The counsel for the appellant has relied upon a decision reported in State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani and Ors. : 2002(143)ELT249(SC) and has contended that a pragmatic approach may be taken in the matter while considering the procedural delay caused in the Govt. Department as a usual feature.

(3.) AS no sufficient cause is made out explaining the delay, the application Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal also fails as barred by limitation.