State of Bihar &
Ors. Vs. Arjun Prasad Rajak [2009] INSC 392 (23 February 2009)
Judgment
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.1159 OF 2009 (Arising out
of SLP(C) NO.4924 of 2009) ( CC:1581 of 2009) The State of Bihar & Ors.
.............. Appellants Versus Arjun Prasad Rajak ..............Respondent
H.L. Dattu, J.
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
1.
Challenging
the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in L.P.A.
No. 690 of 2008 dated 15th September, 2008, the State of Bihar has filed this
civil appeal. By the impugned judgment, the High Court has declined to condone
the delay in filing the Letters Patent Appeal and, consequently, has rejected
the appeal.
2.
In
filing the appeal, there was a delay of one year and eighteen days.
Alongwith the appeal,
an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act had been filed to condone
the delay in filing the appeal, if any. In the affidavit filed alongwith the
application, the delay in filing the appeal had been explained. The High Court
is of the view that the explanation offered in filing the appeal belatedly, is
not satisfactorily explained. Accordingly, it has declined to entertain the
appeal. Yet, again has also found that there is no merit in the appeal.
1.
2.
3.
We
have heard learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
4.
We
have carefully perused the order passed by the High Court and the explanation
offered by the appellants in the affidavit filed for condonation of delay in
filing the appeal belatedly. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are
of the opinion, the High Court should have condoned the delay in filing the
appeal and should have decided the appeal on merits.
Furthermore, this
Court has consistently held, that, if, for the reason, the appeal is dismissed
on the ground of delay, the court need not express its opinion on the merits of
the appeal. In the instant case, the High Court while declining to entertain
the appeal on the ground of delay, has also made passing observation on the
merits of the appeal, which, in our opinion ought not to have been done by the
High Court.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
In
the aforesaid view of the matter, we cannot sustain the impugned order.
6.
In
the result, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order passed by the High Court
is set aside. We condone the delay in filing the Letters Patent Appeal subject
to the appellants paying cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the respondent within six weeks
from today. We request the High Court to decide the Letters Patent Appeal on
merits as expeditiously as possible at any rate within six months from the date
of receipt of copy of this Court's order.
.......................................J.
[ TARUN CHATTERJEE ]
.......................................J.
[ H.L. DATTU ]
New
Delhi,
February
23, 2009.
Back
Pages: 1 2 3
