9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Whether applications for condonation of delay in filing a petition of appeal can be heard by the Judge in Chambers. Analysis: The judgment revolves around the question of whether applications for condonation of delay in filing a petition of appeal can be entertained by the Judge in Chambers. The argument presented was that if such applications are rejected by the Judge in Chambers, it would effectively amount to the dismissal of the appeal by the same authority. The existing practice of posting these applications before the Judge in Chambers was challenged, suggesting that they should be listed before the full Court to avoid potential dismissal. The relevant rule discussed was Order VI Rule 2(14) of the Supreme Court Rules, which outlines the powers of the Court that may be exercised by a Single Judge sitting in Chambers. Notably, applications for enlargement or abridgement of time, excluding specific exceptions like condonation of delay in filing special leave petitions, are typically heard by the Judge in Chambers as per the Rules. The judgment further delves into the interpretation of Order XLVII Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules, which allows the Court to extend or shorten any time appointed for performing an action as deemed just. It emphasizes that the time limit for presenting a petition of appeal is fixed by the Court rules and can be extended under specific circumstances. The analysis also highlights the significance of the language used in Order VI Rule 2(14), particularly the terms "enlargement or abridgement of time," which encompass applications for extending the time prescribed by the Rules. The exception for condonation of delay in filing special leave petitions indicates that such applications are not typically within the purview of the Chamber Judge, reinforcing the inclusion of condonation of delay in filing a petition of appeal under the broader category of time-related applications. Moreover, the judgment references the longstanding practice of the Chamber Judge handling applications for condonation of delay in filing petitions of appeal within the prescribed time limits since 1966. It cites the principle that the practice of the Court constitutes the law of the Court, emphasizing the importance of adhering to established practices for consistency and efficiency. The concluding opinion of the Court asserts that applications for condonation of delay in filing petitions of appeal fall within the Chamber business as outlined in Order VI Rule 2(14), affirming the validity of the existing practice within the judicial framework.
|
