R.S.A. No. 1556 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1556 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.04.2009 Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Panchkula and another ....appellants versus Rajbir Singh ....respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. K.S. Malik, Advocate, for the appellants. *** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 10.9.2008 passed by the learned lower appellate Court allowing the suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff/respondent. The plaintiff/respondent challenged the imposition of penalty by defendant/appellants to be, null and void, arbitrary having been passed in violation of sale circular as also principles of natural justice. The suit was contested by the defendant/appellants. The learned trial Court found the checking report, to be illegal, null and viold and also being violative of principles of natural justice. However, the learned trial Court held that, the civil Court did not have the jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit, as the departmental remedies were available to the plaintiff, by raising dispute before the R.S.A. No. 1556 of 2009 (O&M) -2- dispute redressal committees constituted by the defendant/appellants. The suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court, for want of jurisdiction. In appeal, the appellants did not choose to challenge the findings of the learned trial Court on merits, either by filing cross- objections or invoking jurisdiction under Order 41 Rule 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and contested the appeal on the question of jurisdiction of the civil Court to entertain and try the suit. The learned lower appellate Court held that in view of the law laid down by this Court in M/s Ranbaxi Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala, 2004 PLR 101, civil Court had the jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit and as there was no challenge to findings of learned trial Court on other issues, and the appeal was allowed. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants contends that the appeal raises the following substantial question of law: "Whether the suit filed was maintainable in the civil Court, though appeal claiming the relief was pending before the XEN?" In support of the substantial question of law, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that as per instructions of the appellants, the plaintiff/respondent could have raised the dispute before the committees constituted by the appellants by appeal through XEN and the jurisdiction of the civil Court, thus, would be barred. This plea of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted in view of the authoritative pronouncement by this Court in R.S.A. No. 1556 of 2009 (O&M) -3- M/s Ranbaxi Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala (supra). There is no merit in this appeal, as the civil Court had jurisdiction, as departmental remedies were not statutory. This appeal is accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 85 days in filing the appeal. The ground taken for condonation of delay reads as under: - "That the impugned judgment and decree was passed on 10.9.2008 by the learned Additional District, Judge, Karnal and the appellant applied for getting the certified copy of the same on 11.9.2008 which was prepared on 26.9.2008 and received by the appellant on 27.9.2008. After getting the copy of the impugned judgment and decree which was sent to the legal section for giving its opinion for filing the appeal in this Hon'ble High Court. In this process it took more time and caused delay of 85 days in filing the R.S.A." The reading of the averments would show that absolutely no explanation has been given, as to where the delay occurred in taking the decision, and whether the delay was justified. The ground taken does not make out a sufficient cause, for condoning the delay of 85 days in filing the appeal. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is dismissed on merits as well as on the ground of limitation. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge April 21, 2009 R.S.