Aligarh Muslim University and Others vs Suchita Nayyar

Indermeet Kaur, J.—This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 1.08.2007 which had dismissed the first appeal filed by the Appellant i.e. Aligarh Muslim University and others on the ground that the delay of 85 days had not been explained in filing the appeal.

The present suit had been filed by Smt. Suchita Nayyar against the Aligarh Muslim University for recovery of Rs. 2,73,326/-. It was based on delivery of goods supplied by the plaintiff to the Defendant. The oral and documentary evidence had been led by the respective parties before the Trial Judge. The suit of the plaintiff had been decreed.

The first appeal had been filed by the Appellant. Without going into the merits of the case, the appeal had been dismissed on the ground of limitation. It was stated that the delay of 85 days had not been explained by the Appellants.

In the body of the application filed before the first Appellate Court (under Section 5 of the Limitation Act), the Appellant had submitted that after passing of the decree on 29.10.2005, the certified copy of the same had been applied for on 17.11.2005. It was delivered on 21.11.2005. The limitation for filing the appeal expired on 04.12.2005. The appeal was however filed on 25.02.2006. There was an intervening delay of 85 days. In this application which had been filed before the First Appellate Court, the following was the explanation given by the Appellant. It was stated that the Appellant being the University, the certified copy of the judgment and decree had been sent to the office of the Registrar who had granted permission to file the appeal on 15.12.2005. The counsel was contacted on 17.12.2005. The said counsel had to leave for urgent personal work and was back only in the first week of January 2006. Admittedly, there were winter vacations during this period i.e. between Christmas to the second day of January 2006. Court fee could not be obtained; the procedure for release of cash money for payment of the court fee took time; amount was received on 03.02.2006; after obtaining the court fee, the appeal had been filed after the approval and signatures of the Appellant authority. This was the explanation furnished by the Appellant.

In State of Nagaland v. Lipok Ao and Ors. 2005 SSC 752, the Supreme Court has reiterated the oft noted proposition that the provisions of Section 5 of the limitation Act have to be construed liberally so as to advance substantial justice. It had noted that although no special indulgence can be shown to the Government which, in similar circumstances, is not shown to an individual suitor, a practical view has to be taken of the working of the Government without being unduly indulgent to the slow motion of its wheels.

In this background, the explanation furnished by the Appellant which is a Government Department is accepted. The delay in filing the appeal before the first appellate court is condoned. The matter is remanded back to the First Appellate Court to decide it on merits. For the said purpose, parties will appear before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts on 28th February at 10.30 am.

Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.