Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
FAO No. 468/2012 20th May, 2014 DHARMENDER KUMAR ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Anshuman Bal, Adv.
Through: None
To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
CM Nos.7811/2014, 7812/2014 & 7813/2014 These are applications for restoration of the appeal which was dismissed in default on 12.12.2013 and for condonation of delay. Appellant has deposited the costs of Rs.2,000/- with the Delhi High Court Legal
Services Committee and receipt of which shall be placed on record during the course of the day. Appeal is therefore restored to its original number.
Applications are disposed of.
2014:DHC:2675
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 impugning the judgment of the Tribunal dated 11.04.2012 by which the Tribunal has refused to condone the delay of 227 days in filing the claim petition.
2. It is not disputed that there is power in the Tribunal to condone the delay and the issue is whether sufficient cause is shown for condonation of delay of 227 days.
3. In my opinion, delay of 227 days is not such a great delay because ordinarily a period of three years is provided for filing of all types of residuary suits under the Limitation Act. The claim petition before the Tribunal is however to be filed within one year. The Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy AIR 1998 SC 3222 has held that once condonation of delay is sought there is bound to be some negligence but once there is no want of good faith on behalf of the applicant delay should be condoned.
4. No doubt in the present case appellant in the application for condonation of delay has not mentioned the name of the earlier counsel who has expired and consequently leading to delay in filing the claim petition, however, such deficiency has been removed by stating the details in this appeal. It may be noted that the appellant is a permanent resident of Kanpur and, therefore, could not remain personally in touch with his earlier counsel who expired, and therefore the delay of 227 days.
5. In view of the above, this is a fit case where the Tribunal should entertain the claim petition on merits instead of dismissing the claim petition on technicalities, more so because sufficient reasons have been given of the papers being given to the earlier counsel who has died.
6. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment of the Tribunal dated 11.04.2012 is set aside. Delay in filing the claim petition is condoned. The Railway Claims Tribunal will now decide the matter on merits in accordance with law.
7. Let the parties appear before the Railway Claims Tribunal on 31.07.2014 for further proceedings. MAY20, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. mm