Union of India Th.G.M., Western Rly. & Anr. vs Fataji Chaturji & Ors.
- SCC(2008) 12 SCC 363
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Condonation of delay in filing Letters Patent Appeals may be granted where the appellants offer reasonable explanations for the delay and the circumstances of the case warrant it, notwithstanding that the delay exceeds a substantial period such as 148 days. The appellate court in considering such applications should exercise discretion to condone delays in filings and restore the appeals to the file for substantive disposal, rather than dismiss them on the procedural ground of delay alone, provided that the merits and maintainability of the substantive appeal remain open for consideration at the time of final hearing.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Fataji Chaturji & Ors. ...Respondents
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. This is an appeal filed at the instance of
Union of India against the Judgment and
final order dated 29th of December, 2005
passed by the High Court of Gujarat in Civil
Application Nos. 12992 to 13002 of 2005
with Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 1446 to
1456 of 2005, by which the High Court had
refused to condone the delay of 148 days in
filing the Letters Patent Appeals. 2
3. We have heard Mr. B. Dutta, learned
Additional Solicitor General, appearing for
the appellants and Mr. Vimal Chandra S.
Dave, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents and considering the facts and
circumstances of the case and the
explanations offered by the appellants in
their application for condonation of delay,
we are of the view that the delay in filing the
LPAs must be condoned and LPAs be
restored to its original file. Accordingly, we
order the same.
4. The High Court is therefore requested to
dispose of the LPAs on merits and in
accordance with law within a period of eight
weeks from the date of supply of a copy of
this order to it. It is also made clear that at
the time of hearing of the LPAs, it would be
open to the parties to question the
maintainability of the appeal before the 3
Division Bench, which shall also be taken
into consideration at the time of such
disposal.
5. Accordingly, the impugned orders of the
High Court are set aside. The appeal is
thus allowed to the extent indicated above.
There will be no order as to costs.
............................J. [Tarun Chatterjee]
New Delhi; ... ............... .........J. September 11, 2008. [Aftab Alam]
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free