- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Shankarrao v. Chandrasenkunwar .
Factual and Procedural Background
The matter concerns an appeal for which an application seeking condonation of delay was filed. The appeal was initially presented within time but was lodged in the court of the learned Additional District Judge rather than in the court of the learned District Judge. The memorandum of appeal was returned for presentation before the District Judge and was presented in the District Judge’s court on the very same day. Despite these circumstances, the application for condonation of delay was rejected by the court(s) below, leading to the present appellate intervention.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, on the facts stated (timely presentation but filing in the wrong court and re-presentation the same day), the delay ought to have been condoned as being supported by sufficient cause and not intentional.
- Whether the courts below erred in rejecting the application for condonation of delay by adopting what the court described as an “injustice-oriented approach.”
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court reasoned that the application for condonation of delay should have been granted “for the mere asking,” because the appeal was presented within time and the only lapse was that it was lodged in the wrong court (the Additional District Judge instead of the District Judge). Once the memorandum was returned, it was presented to the proper court on the same day.
On these facts, the court found “more than sufficient cause” for the inadvertent delay and emphasized that the delay was not intentional, noting rhetorically that the appellant had nothing to gain by delaying. The court concluded that the rejection of condonation reflected an “injustice-oriented approach” and therefore should not stand.
Holding and Implications
ALLOWED; ORDERS SET ASIDE; DELAY CONDONED.
The orders of the courts below were set aside, and the delay in filing/presenting the appeal in the proper court was condoned. The matter was remanded to the learned District Judge to dispose of the appeal on merits, in accordance with law, expeditiously, and after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to both sides. The court directed no costs. No broader implications or new precedent were discussed in the opinion beyond the direct effect of restoring the appeal for decision on merits.
Order
1. We are of the opinion that this is a case in which the application for condonation of delay should have been granted for the mere asking of it. The appeal was presented in time though it was lodged in the Court of the learned Additional District Judge instead of lodging it in the Court of the learned District Judge. The memo was returned for presentation to the Court of District Judge and it was presented in his court on that very day. On these facts it is obvious that there was more than sufficient cause for the inadvertent delay which was not intentional (what was the appellant to gain by such delay ?). The court should not have therefore made an injustice-oriented approach and rejected the application for condonation of delay.
2. The appeal is allowed, orders of the courts below are set aside, delay is condoned. The matter will now go back to the learned District Judge who will dispose it of on merits in accordance with law expeditiously after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to both the sides.
3. No costs.
Alert