Union Territory, Chandigarh And Others vs Prem Singh

Alka Sarin, J

The present revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 26.05.2015 passed by the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, whereby the

application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal by the defendant-petitioners was dismissed.

In order to appreciate the point involved in the revision, it is necessary to notice a few facts. The plaintiff-respondent had filed a civil suit for

declaration to the effect that the plaintiff-respondent is the occupant of a shop in Rehri Market, Sector 46, Chandigarh, since 1987 and carrying on his

business at the abovesaid market under a licence duly issued and registered by the defendant-petitioners and, as such, is eligible as per the

Allotment/Transfer of Built up Booths in any Sector on Lease/Hire Purchase basis in Chandigarh Rules, 1991, for the allotment of a pucca booth

which already stands constructed in the said market. The plaintiff-respondent had also sought relief of permanent injunction. The defendant -

petitioners, in their written statement, took a stand that the Screening Committee, constituted for the purpose, rejected the claim of the plaintiff-

respondent after giving him due opportunity of being heard in person. It was found that the plaintiff-respondent had no right entitling him for allotment.

The Trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated 24.12.2012, the defendant-petitioners

filed an appeal before the lower Appellate Court along with an application for condonation of delay of 238 days in filing the appeal. The application for

condonation of delay was dismissed on 26.05.2015. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition has been filed.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the defendant-petitioners that the delay of 238 days in filing the appeal is unintentional and the same

has occurred due to the reason that after obtaining a certified copy of judgment dated 24.12.2012 the matter was taken by the defendant-petitioners

with the Legal Remembrancer, U.T., Chandigarh, and, finally, the administrative decision was taken to challenge the judgment dated 24.12.2012, as

the order passed by the Trial Court was prejudicial to the interests of the defendant-petitioners. It has further been contended that being a Government

department there was some delay in filing the appeal which is totally unintentional.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent has stated that condonation of delay would cause prejudice to the plaintiff-respondent and,

hence, the present revision deserves to be dismissed.

Though no grounds have been made out for the condonation of delay, however, since the matter in dispute would have far reaching consequences, I,

therefore, in the peculiar set of facts and circumstances of the case, deem it appropriate to exercise jurisdiction under A rticle 227 of the Constitution

of India and interfere with the order passed by the lower Appellate Court. The delay in the filing the first appeal is, hence, condoned. The same shall,

however, be subject to payment of Rs.25,000/ - as costs, to be paid to the plaintiff-respondent. It is made clear that the appeal shall not be heard on

merits till such time as the said amount of Rs.25,000/- is paid to the plaintiff -respondent.

In view of the above, the present revision is allowed.