State Of Bihar vs Pukhan Mahto

2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. The

respondent, though served with notice, has not chosen to enter

his appearance.

3. This appeal is directed against the judgment and

order dated 10.08.2004 passed by the High Court of Judicature

at Patna in F.A.No.484 of 1995.

4. The State of Bihar, being aggrieved by the order

passed by the Reference Court, had approached the High Court by

filing the First Appeal No.484 of 1995. In filing the appeal,

there was a delay of just 21 days. For condonation of delay in

filing the appeal, an application under Section 5 of the

Limitation Act had also been filed. For reasons difficult to

sustain, the High Court has refused to condone the delay and

consequently, it has rejected the First Appeal.

5. In our opinion, in a matter like this, the High

2

Court ought to have condoned the delay and heard the appeal on

its own merits. Since that had not been done, we cannot sustain

the order passed by the High Court. Consequently, we allow the

appeal and set aside the order passed by the High Court. We

also condone the delay in filing the First Appeal before the

High Court. We request the High Court to decide the First

Appeal expeditiously on its own merits.

Ordered accordingly.

.......................J. (H.L. DATTU)

.......................J. (CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD)

NEW DELHI;

NOVEMBER 18, 2011