MAULANA GULAM ABDUL KASIM Vs. DARGAH COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiff's second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 8/1/2001 passed by District Judge, Ajmer in Regular Civil Appeal No. 87/1999 whereby the appeal of the plaintiff was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 24/10/1994 passed by Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Ajmer City (West), Ajmer in Civil Suit No. 295/1987 has been affirmed.

(2.) According to the office report, this appeal has been filed after a delay of 3229 days and an application under section 5 read with section 14 of the Limitation Act has also been filed, therefore heard learned counsel for the parties on the application filed by the appellant for condonation of delay.

(3.) It was inter alia contended that on account of paucity of funds, the appellant could not avail the statutory remedy of filing second appeal within the stipulated period of 90 days. It was then submitted that on getting the financial aid from the relatives and friends he filed a Civil Writ No. 5928/2005 on 12/10/2004 and challenged the impugned order of termination dated 27/9/1985 and that writ petition came to be decided on 2/12/2008 wherein this Court has granted liberty to the appellant to file second appeal and also observed that appellant can avail the benefit of section 14 of the Limitation Act for the period w.e.f 12/10/2004 to 2/12/2008, therefore appellant has good reason for seeking condonation of delay occurring in filing this appeal. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment delivered in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji, reported in AIR 1987 SC 1353, wherein it was held that courts should adopt a liberal and justice oriented approach and while condoning the delay of four days on the part of the State in filing the appeal it was further observed that hyper technical ground of bar of limitation should not be adopted. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment delivered in the case of Bhikhabhai Mavjibhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, reported in 1994(1) Gujarat Law Reporter page 151 wherein it was held that technical plea should ordinarily not be taken by Government or a public authority.