The State of Haryana and Another vs Ram Nath

Mahesh Grover, J.—The only grievance of the Petitioners in the instant revision petition is that the appeal before the First Appellate Court directed against the order of the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Panchkula dated November 14, 2008, has been dismissed only on the ground that it was barred by delay of 82 days. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners states that the delay had been sufficiently explained and even otherwise, it was not in ordinate so as to warrant dismissal on the ground of limitation, and deprive the Petitioner an opportunity to get a decision on merits.

Learned Counsel for the Respondent, on the other hand, states that since the appeal was barred by limitation, the First Appellate Court committed no illegality in dismissing the same.

After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the revision petition deserves to be accepted. Delay of 82 days cannot be termed to be so inordinate so as to deprive a person of his right to get the appeal decided on the merits of the controversy. In such an eventuality, ends of justice would be squarely met if the matter is remanded back to the First Appellate Court for decision of the appeal afresh on merits. The State, however, shall deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as costs which shall be paid to the present Respondent.

In view of the aforesaid observations, the revision petition stands accepted and the impugned order is set aside.Parties are directed to appear before the First Appellate Court on 06.01.2011.