9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Application under S. 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing an appeal. 2. Tampering with a certified copy of a judgment leading to confusion regarding the date of readiness. 3. Lack of supervision in the Copying Department leading to issuance of certified copies in violation of rules. Detailed Analysis: 1. The judgment addressed an application under S. 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing an appeal. The appeal was presented seven days beyond the stipulated time limit. The appellant moved the application supported by affidavits explaining the delay. The court examined the sequence of events and the actions taken by the appellant before the expiration of the limitation period. The court acknowledged that the delay was not due to any fault of the appellant but possibly due to the counsel or their office. The court, after thorough consideration, decided to allow the application and condone the delay of seven days in filing the appeal. 2. The judgment highlighted a situation where tampering with a certified copy of a judgment created confusion regarding the date of readiness of the copy. The court observed discrepancies in the certified copy, leading to suspicion and subsequent investigations. The court noted that the tampering was likely done after the copy was handed over to the counsel, as the original date was intact until that point. The judgment emphasized the importance of maintaining the integrity of official records and expressed regret over the incident. The court, while unable to pinpoint the guilty party, directed an inquiry into the matter and stressed the need for stricter supervision to prevent such occurrences in the future. 3. The judgment delved into the issue of lack of supervision in the Copying Department, resulting in the issuance of certified copies in violation of rules. The court highlighted the rules governing the preparation and issuance of certified copies, emphasizing the importance of including specific dates in words and figures to prevent tampering. The court directed the District Judge to conduct an immediate inquiry, fix responsibility, and take necessary actions against those found guilty. The judgment underscored the repeated failures to address these issues despite circular letters from the High Court, necessitating judicial intervention to curb the malpractices in certified copy issuance. In conclusion, the judgment addressed the application for condonation of delay, the tampering with a certified copy leading to confusion, and the need for improved supervision in the Copying Department to uphold the integrity of official records and prevent violations of rules in certified copy issuance.
|
