W.m HIEvH COURT OF . . (:HHA! TIS6ARH .. AT n BILA$PUR 5econd Armand No. i7? o~r 21mg 4. Rohif, 5/0 Rmmharé, aggd about? 54 years {AH Rig Vmaa 9 — Baikun?hwm, P Qaigarh Disf‘rkaigarh (CG) ($ECOND APPEAL UNDER 5ECTION K30 OF THE CODE OF CIVEL PQOCEDURE i908) Prese‘m“ .‘ Mn $143M Dubey, EQvemmen? Advoca‘fg for ‘rhe appe!!mT/$mfa Mrs. Hamida Skidique, counsef for The respondems. Judgmen't (Passed on 2M Juiy, 2009) By This awed, the appalian? has chalknged The !ega§ify and pmpréa‘ry af fha arder da‘md i4.1.2009 passed by fhe 4“ Addifiom! DisTrkT Judgg (FTC), Raigarh, in CivN Appaa! No.12~A/2008. g» Learned counsel for fhe agpglmnf submifs Thmf The appea? fiied m2 bahaif 9f fhe appeilanf was dismissed nn§y cm fha ground fha? it? was filad affar 17 days of ifs Hmifwion and no masmabk axphnau‘mn was $E : Hon'bie Mr. TP. §harma, ‘7’ Ap9mm??? 51mm of Chhaffisgarh, Defendam ‘fhmugh Coiiecfor, DisffRai9arh (Ca) Varsus Raggandgm‘s Piain‘fiffs 1. T§kcsm Kumar, 5/9 Degriigh aged abouf 55 years 2. 5am? Kumar, 5/9 Degriiah aged abw? 60 years. 3. Diieshwan .Sfo Ramhar‘i, aged abou'!’ 61 e!w ‘ offered and Their is on1y subsMMhl quesficm of lQw f0!" dispnsa! 0f this appeal. 3. Fmm perusal of The rgcards of “flag Cour'rs below if agpears that iha appeal was dism§ssed oniy an fine ground 0f Iimha’rion Tha‘r Too, barred by 17 days. The appeal is admi??ed on the hum/wing question of lawn Whafher *rhe bwer appetiafe (Your? was jusfified in dismissing me appficafion for condonufion of deiay in Wing fhe appeai? ‘ 4‘ Parfies hava made weir appear-mm and records nrg aiso available. Wifh the: consem‘ of learned counse! appearing for ‘Hae par’ries, Tha appaai is haurd finaiiy and di5posed of‘ é. Admiffediy acaording fo case of Tho: nppeiiam‘, The prasan'r appeiianf has preferred Civii Appaai Ms.12—Al2908 befsre iha 4“” Addii‘igmi Disi'ricf Judge (ETC), Raigarh which was dismissaci on 14.1.2009 {m The ground ma? +ha appeal was fiied uf‘ier 17 days of ifs iimim‘rion. The appeiicmf has faiied i0 offer expiana'iion for delay in filing fhe appeal and ground faker! in fhe appiicaiion for condomiion of deiay in fiiing fine agpeai Thai The appaiiani‘ was busy in adminisfm‘iivg and unavoidable work was naf sufficient 7.. Learnzd counsel for fins appgiicm'i submits mat The Sin'ie au'fhori‘i'y, who was responsible for filing The appeoi, was busy in odminis‘i‘m‘iive and unovoidabie work, ‘i'ioerefore, 17 days deioy was caused in fiiing fhe appeal. Definitely, The appeal was Time barred bu'i' ‘ihe Court was required To fake liberal View. 8. 0n the Miler hand, learned counsel for The respondent“: submiis Tho? ihe appelianf has noi- offe red any saiisfaciory explana'rion for delay in filing The appeal, fherefore, lhe Quin? below has righfiy dismissed *he aopeal. ‘,, _ ,kby’v 9. l haw: paruged order impugned and records of ’rhe Caurfs bg§ow perusad. 10. The cppea! was filad before "the appell‘lm‘e Caur? affer £7 days of ifs iimitm‘ian. The par‘ries are required to explain deiay 9f each day safEsfacforily, bu’r fhe Cour? was required 1'0 fake {ihgmi viaw in accapfing The axpmnmicn offamd on behalf of the parfies. The appziiqm has specifically made avermgn‘l' 3n his appllcafim filad under Secficm 5 m" Thg Llmimfion Acf flnm aufhcri‘ry concar‘nad was busy in administra‘l’ive and unavnldable work, Therafore, he was no? in a posl‘lim iro flle fl’se appeal whhin limi’ra‘rion. 11. On due cansidamflon Qf 'rhe facts and circumsmncas of 1413 casa especially delay of enly 17 days and explanm’ion offared on behalf of 1kg appellant subsilan‘l’lal quaslian 0f law is decidad as mga‘rlva in favour af The appellant. 12. Fer the foregeing masons, ‘l'lrlg appeal is allowgcl subjec'l‘ To pay/men? of cost of RglGQGL To fhe responden’lsl Order- lmpugned is hes-aw 36? aside. The. appeal is ramllfed fa fha Cour? cf 4’“ Addi’rional Disfrlct Judge (ETC), Ralgm‘l’l far hearing “me appeal in merl‘m affer affording cm oppormni‘l’y of hearing 1m the par-lies. No order as m cos'rs. Advoca’re fee as per schedule. B/~ Decree be drawn accardingly. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge