AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Jaya Roy, J.
I.A. No. 4507 of 2010
The present L.P.A. is barred by time of 184 days.
Heard learned Counsel for the Appellant on application for condonation of delay.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Appellant has challenged the order dated 12.05.2010 by preferring L.P.A. and submitted this L.P.A. before this Court on 12th July, 2010. However, there were some defects and therefore, as per Rules which were prevailing at that time, office after putting the marks on the defects returned the L.P.A. to the learned Counsel for the Appellant for representation before the Court after removal of defects.
It appears from the defects-note made by the Registry that defects were pointed out on the same day of presentation of L.P.A. i.e., on 21st June, 2010 itself and this L.P.A. has been re-presented on 22.12.2010 i.e., after a delay of six months.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that since the learned Single Judge himself fixed the date for final hearing of the writ petition itself in the impugned order, therefore, the Appellant did not pursue this L.P.A. and when the matter was not heard for a long time, then the L.P.A. has been re-presented in the Court again on 22.12.2010 after removing the defects.
The events mentioned above clearly demonstrate that in the High Court of Jharkhand the petitions / L.P.A. etc., could have been presented in the Court and even when office acted promptly to point out the defects, the parties through their counsel could have taken back the original file of the Court i.e., file of the "Court of record" and so was permissible under the then Rules framed by the High Court itself which provided for return of the original file to the parties for the purpose of removing the defects instead of keeping the file in the High Court and directing the parties to remove the defects in the High Court so as to maintain the sanctity of the records of the Court of Records.
Be that as it may, that Rule has now been deleted.
In this case the Appellant was aggrived against the non-modification of the interim order for which Interlocutory Application was submitted by the Appellant. It goes without saying that in a matter of relief of urgent nature, parties should act promptly and if, parties by their conduct accept the position to continue for a long time, then in that situation the Appellate Court may not interfere in the order passed having a life to continue till the matter is finally decided by the original Court who passed the order.
However, in this case we are of the considered opinion that instead of entertaining this L.P.A. after a delay of 184 days, we may request the Learned Single Judge to decide the main writ petition itself expeditiously so that all the controversies may come to an end. Therefore, we are disposing of this L.P.A. with a request to the Learned Single Bench to decide the writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 618 of 2008 expeditiously and copy of this order may be annexed in the file of the said writ petition and learned Counsel for the Appellant may bring to the notice of the learned Single Bench about the order passed by this Bench.
I.A. No. 4507 of 2010 stands disposed of accordingly.