Judgment:
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:
12. h November, 2014 + LA.APP. 159/2014 DHRUV DEV Through: ..... Appellant Mr. M.C. Verma, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Through: ..... Respondents Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate for Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Advocate for respondent No.1 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR JUDGMENT
(Oral) C.M. No.13496/2014 (u/O9Rule 9 r/w Sec. 151 CPC) Restoration of the accompanying appeal is sought by this application as it was dismissed in default on 17th July, 2014. The reasons stated in paragraphs No.6 to 9 of the instant application provide sufficient cause to allow this application and it is therefore allowed and the accompanying appeal is restored to its original position. Application is disposed of. C.M. No.4790/2014 (Condonation of delay) & LA.APP No.159/2014 The delay in filing the accompanying appeal is of about three years. LA.APP No.159/2014 Page 1 A vain effort is made by appellant’s counsel to explain the inordinate delay by asserting that the counsel, who had represented case of appellant before the Reference Court, had applied for certified copy of impugned judgment of 28th October, 2010 and had obtained it in December, 2010 and due to heavy work load of counsel and his slip of sight, the said certified copies were kept with other files and so, could not be handed over to appellant. It is averred in the application that it is only when learned counsel got to see those certified copies that he contacted appellant and advised him to file an appeal against the impugned judgment. It is stated that appellant had then instructed the said counsel to file the appeal but in March, 2014 appellant came to know that his appeal could not be filed. On the face of it, the aforesaid explanation for the delay occasioned is hardly convincing as it is not the case of the appellant/applicant that his counsel had not informed about the impugned decision by the Reference Court. No worthwhile explanation is forthcoming as to when previous counsel for appellant had informed appellant about tracing of certified copies and also that if appellant had approached his counsel in February, 2012, why was he negligent till March, 2014 to not to enquire his counsel about the progress in his appeal, so to be filed by him. More so, no efforts have been made by appellant to procure affidavit of his previous counsel to establish that due to his negligence, appellant could not prefer the appeal in time. Speculative litigation cannot be tolerated at any cost. Therefore, I am not inclined to condone the delay occasioned in filing the accompanying appeal. LA.APP No.159/2014 Page 2 Since no sufficient cause is shown for condoning the delay of about three years in preferring the accompanying appeal, therefore, this application is dismissed. Consequently, accompanying appeal is also dismissed as time barred and on merits too, as compensation has been fairly assessed in the impugned judgment by relying upon decision of co-ordinate bench of this Court in LA.APP. No.266/2008, ‘Jai Singh v. UOI & Anr.’ rendered in the case of similarly situated persons on 23rd August, 2011. (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE NOVEMBER12 2014 r LA.APP No.159/2014 Page 3