State of Bihar
Appellant Vs. Pukhan Mahto
[Civil Appeal No.
9930 of 2011 (Special Leave Petition (C.) No.3486 of 2005)]
O R D E R
have heard learned counsel for the appellant. The respondent, though served
with notice, has not chosen to enter his appearance.
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.
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.
our opinion, in a matter like this, the High 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.
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
(CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD)