State of Maharashtra and Others vs Wasnik Vasantrao Kisanji

A.P. Bhangale, J.—The application is for condonation of delay of 46 days in preferring the first appeal against judgment and order dated 1.9.2012 passed by learned 4th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane, in Special Civil Suit No. 238 of 2011.

The brief facts are that the plaintiff (respondent) a practicing advocate engaged by the State of Maharashtra in many cases in the Industrial Courts and Labour Courts to pursue matters on behalf of the State of Maharashtra, who represented the State Government since the year 1999 had raised bills for his professional fees in the sum of Rs. 6,61,250/. Despite sufficient letters to State Government and demand of bills on several occasions, the professional fees of respondent advocate remained unpaid. The learned advocate also demanded interest on the outstanding dues towards his professional fees. These bill amounts swell to sum of Rs. 12,27,223/- for which Special Suit No. 238 of 2011 was instituted in the Court of 4th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane. The suit was heard and partly decreed with costs as defendants were directed to pay jointly and severally the amount of Rs. 12,27,223/to the plaintiff advocate with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs. 2,27,223/till payment. This decree was passed on 1.9.2012 in presence of Shri Hinge, learned Government Pleader for defence. Thus, although the decree was passed on 1.9.2012, an application for certified copy of the judgment and order was applied for on 15.12.2012, when limitation period to file first appeal had already expired. According to learned Government Pleader, certified copy of impugned judgment and order was obtained on 21.12.2012, and thereafter, Solicitor to Government, Law and Judiciary Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, on 6.12.2012 issued Resolution No. 847/M. Branch for filing first appeal. On 10.12.2012, Office of the Government Pleader, High Court, Appellate Side, received copy of the Resolution and on 11.12.2012, Office of Government Pleader, High Court, Appellate Side, Mumbai, informed the Deputy Secretary, Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development & Fisheries Department Mantralaya, Mumbai and District Government Pleader, Thane, for documents, to take further steps. Thus, on 21.1.2012, Office of the Regional Dairy Development Officer, Mumbai Division, Navi Mumbai, forwarded the certified copies of judgment and decree and all other relevant documents to the Office of Government Pleader, and on 24.12.2012, certified copies were received by the Office of Government Pleader, High Court, Bombay, and on 28.12.2012, AGP concerned drafted the first appeal and the civil application for stay. This is how the present application is filed for condonation of delay of 46 days.

The learned advocate, who is respondent-Shri Vasantrao Wasnik, strongly objected application for condonation of delay on the ground that he has been made to wait for his professional fees, since the year 1999, which caused him immense hardship and inconvenience, despite the fact that the State of Maharashtra admitted its liability to pay professional fees, while suit was pending. Although the suit was decreed for his professional fees, even then, State of Maharashtra unreasonably waited until the appeal period expired, and thereafter also, on flimsy excuses, with a view to delay payment of professional fees to the decree holder. The learned advocate Shri Wasnik, therefore, prayed that the application shall be dismissed as no sufficient cause has been made out to explain delay that has occurred in preferring the first appeal. He cited ruling in Amlendu Kumar Bera and Others Vs. The State of West Bengal, The Hon''ble Supreme Court after placing reliance upon Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Nripen Sarma, observed that the express "sufficient cause" should be considered with pragmatism in justice oriented approach rather than the technical detection of "sufficient cause" for explaining every day''s delay. However, it is equally well settled that the Courts albeit liberally considered the prayer for condonation of delay, but in some cases, the Court may refuse to condone the delay in as much as the Government is not expected to keep watch whether the contesting respondent further put the matter in motion. The delay in official business requires it must not have pedantic approach from public justice perspective. Thus, according to the learned advocate, in a case where there are serious laches and negligence on the part of the State in challenging the decree passed in the suit, the State cannot be allowed to wait and plead flimsy, bald excuse for delay to prefer appeal.

Considering the ruling cited, as also, the facts and circumstances in which delay is sought to be condoned, in my opinion, is inexcusable. If State Government had engaged services of an advocates it is duty bound to pay their professional fees with reasonable promptness and without delay. State cannot afford to fight such litigation, particularly when money decree is already passed for professional fees payable to advocate concerned. Considering the excuse pleaded in the application, although the decree was passed in presence of concerned Government Pleader on 1.9.2012, such Government Pleader is answerable to Law Officer''s Rules in force in the State of Maharashtra since 1984 as amended from time to time. Government Pleader concerned cannot afford to neglect his duty to inform the Law and Judiciary Department of State Government promptly about his proposal to prefer appeal if any. There can be no excuse for Law & Judiciary department to unreasonably wait till the expiry of period of limitation even for to apply for an application for certified copy of judgment and order, against which, first appeal is intended. In the present case, while impugned judgment and order was passed in Special Civil Suit No. 238 of 2011, which was a simple money decree, there was no excuse for Government Pleader concerned to wait until expiry of period of limitation, and then to apply for certified copy only on 15.12.2012, when period for preferring first appeal expired on 30.11.2012. This is unpardonable and inexcusable for Law Officer concerned. Hence delay cannot be condoned.

The application is dismissed. As a consequence, application for stay (Civil Application No. 1828 of 2013) as well as First Appeal (Stamp) No. 2640 of 2013 does not survive.