Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.
CM No. 6379-C of 2014
1. Application is allowed.
2. Reply to the application for condonation of delay is taken on record.
CM No. 9735-C of 2014
3. This application is filed for condonation of delay of 409 days in filing the appeal. The grounds taken in the application are that due to
development and other necessary programmes in the village and being confronted with domestic problems, the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat
could not approach this Court within time and delay of 409 days has occurred. The application is contested by filing reply which is taken on record
by separate order of today. In the reply, it is alleged that the application is totally vague as nothing has been mentioned as to what were the
development programmes and domestic problems of the appellant due to which appellant could not approach the Court in time.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The Regular Second Appeal is filed under Article 116(a) of the Limitation Act, 1963 which
provides for 90 days limitation from the date of decree of order. In case the limitation expires, it can still be extended if the application is filed u/s 5
of the Limitation Act but for that, applicant has to make out case to convince the Court that there was sufficient cause for not approaching the
Court in time. Sufficient cause has not been defined in Section 5 as it depends upon facts of each case. In the present case, I have found from the
record that the judgment and decree of the appellate Court is dated 30.04.2012 and certified copy was applied on 04.09.2013 long after the
expiry of limitation to file the present appeal. It appears that the appellant has not looked after the interest of Panchayat as he did not even obtain
certified copy in time. There is a resolution of the Panchayat on record which is also of 02.09.2013 passed by the Panchayat even before getting
the certified copy of the judgment and decree of the appellate Court. It is really strange that without even looking into the judgment and decree of
the appellate Court, the Panchayat had decided to file the appeal. In the absence of any evidence much less cogent in support of the averment
made in para 2 of the application, it is suffice to say that the averments made in the application does not inspire the confidence for the purpose of
condonation of delay. Hence, the application is hereby dismissed.
RSA No. 3628 of 2013 (O&M)
5. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed.
