CR No.2291 of 2004 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.2291 of 2004 (O&M) Decided on : 08.09.2010 Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. ... Petitioner versus Mohan Lal ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present : Mr. Alok Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent. **** 1. To be referred to the reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? *** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.(Oral) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 29.01.2004 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Fast Track Court, Ambala by which the application filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short the 'Act') for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was dismissed. Consequently, the first appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the trial court was also dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is entitled to full pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.09.1996 for the service period from 31.12.1962 to 30.09.1996 including the work charge establishment without any deduction or recovery except by due process of law, with CR No.2291 of 2004 (O&M) -2- consequential relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to release the payment of full pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits along with interest @24% per annum on delayed payments from the date of filing of suit till the date of payment. The said suit was partly decreed on 12.02.2003 by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Ambala and the plaintiff was held entitled to pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits on retirement on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.09.1996 for the service period from 31.12.1962 to 30.09.1996 including the period of work charge establishment. It was further directed to release the due amount with interest @ 18% per annum. Aggrieved from the judgment and decree of the trial court, the petitioner had filed first appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short the CPC). The said appeal was delayed by a period of 53 days. Consequently, the petitioner had filed an application under Section 5 of the Act on 13.05.2003 in which it was interalia urged that the application for obtaining certified copy of the judgment and decree of the trial court was moved on 25.02.2003, which was made available on 06.03.2003. The matter was referred to the Legal Remembrances, HVPNL, Panchkula for taking permission to file the appeal. The said permission was granted on 06.05.2003 and the appeal was filed on 13.5.2003. This application was contested by the plaintiff-respondent. In reply, it was alleged that there is an inordinate delay of 53 days in filing the appeal and the reason explained by the defendant-petitioner is not sufficient. The petitioner also filed counter reply to the reply in which it was alleged that the suit was filed against HSEB. On 14.08.1998, by way of separate Act, HSEB was scrapped and two concern i.e. Haryana Vidyut Parsaran CR No.2291 of 2004 (O&M) -3- Nigam and Haryana Power Generation Corporation Ltd. came into being. Further, Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam was bifurcated in three units, namely HVPN, UHBVNL and DHBVNL by way of separate Act dated 01.07.1999. The division i.e. Workshop General in which the plaintiff-respondent was serving came within the jurisdiction of UHBVNL where he was posted as J.E. in the office of Chief Engineer (Workshop) and SE General Workshop, Dhulkot. These offices were further abolished and the office of the plaintiff-respondent in which he was working at the time of retirement again came under the purview of HVPN from where the plaintiff was withdrawing his pension and had taken all other benefits after retirement. Thus, it was alleged that HVPN was directly effected by the impugned judgment and decree but some time was consumed by the petitioner to decide as to which department could file the appeal to the judgment of the trial court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned courts below have not considered these judgments in its true perspective as it has been observed that the facts narrated in the counter reply were not mentioned in the application filed under Section 5 of the Act. It is further submitted that it hardly makes any difference if the said facts are not mentioned in the application under Section 5 of the Act but are given in counter reply in which an explanation has been given as to why they were at fault in filing the appeal late before the First Appellate Court. It is also submitted that the delay in filing the appeal is not inordinate nor the petitioner had slept over its right as immediately after taking the certified copy, opinion was sought as to whether the appeal should be filed or not. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the reason assigned by the petitioner in the application in the counter CR No.2291 of 2004 (O&M) -4- reply formed sufficient cause on which the learned First Appellate Court should have condoned the delay and decided the appeal on merit. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record thoroughly. To my mind, it will not make any difference if the said facts are not found part of the application filed under Section 5 of the Act because in any case, an explanation has been given to justify the delay occurred in filing the appeal. It is pertinent to mention here that, undisputedly, the term 'sufficient cause' is not defined in the Act. It depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case, I find that the reason assigned by the petitioner forms sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Court below. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the first appellate court to decide it afresh in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before First Appellate Court on 05.10.2010. September 08, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) sonia JUDGE