2008 (1) TMI 888 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved: Condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal, misrepresentation of facts, application of Rule 5 of the Rules, sufficiency of cause for delay, interpretation of limitation laws.

Condonation of Delay: The delay of 688 days in re-filing the appeal was sought to be condoned based on the grounds presented in the application. However, the misrepresentation of facts regarding the return date of the appeal to the counsel was noted, leading to doubts about the credibility of the reasons provided for the delay.

Application of Rule 5 of the Rules: Rule 5 of Chapter 1, Part-A of the Rules and Orders of Punjab and Haryana High Court was referenced, which specifies the procedure for returning and amending appeals. The rule mandates that returned appeals must be refiled within 10 days, extendable up to 40 days in total, after removal of objections.

Sufficiency of Cause for Delay: The applicant cited the misplacement of the brief during an office shift as the primary reason for the delay. However, the court highlighted the lack of specific details regarding the timeline of events and the efforts made to retrieve the file, casting doubt on the validity of the explanation provided.

Interpretation of Limitation Laws: The counsel argued that once an appeal is filed within the limitation period, subsequent delays in re-filing should not be considered. Reference was made to previous judgments where delays were condoned based on similar grounds of missing files. However, the court emphasized the importance of adhering to limitation laws without leniency for negligent behavior.

Conclusion: The application for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal was dismissed, along with the application for condonation of the initial 8-day delay in filing the appeal. The court reiterated the strict application of limitation laws and the dismissal was based on the principle that limitations must be enforced rigorously without room for compassionate or equitable considerations in cases of negligence or misrepresentation.