BALWAN SINGH AND ANOTHER vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RSA 43/2023
BALWAN SINGH AND ANOTHER ….. Appellants
Through: Mr. H.P. Chakravorty and Mr. A.K. Bhakta, Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ….. Respondents
Through: Mr. Subhash Tanwar, CGSC with Mr. Gokul Sharma, GP, Mr. Ashish Chaudhary and Mr. Sandeep Mishra, Advs. for R-1
Mr. Angant Singh, Adv. for R-3

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
% 10.04.2024

CM APPL.21435.2024 (for condonation of delay of 3121 days in refilling)

1. This appeal has been preferred with a delay of 3121 days.
2. The final judgment and order under challenge in this second appeal was passed by the learned First Appellate Court on 16 January 2014 in Regular Civil Appeal 19/2013 and 5 March 2014 in Review Application 20/2014.
3. This appeal was initially filed on 31 May 2014.
4. The appeal was returned with defects, and was refiled for the first time on 26 April 2018, i.e. after four years. The appeal again returned with defects and refiled almost five years after that on 16 February 2023.
5. Delay in refiling is ordinarily treated with leniency by this Court. That, however, does not mean that the Court can condone ten years delay in refiling without due course.
6. In the present application, the only ground that is taken is that certain documents were required to be retyped. It is stated that after the matter was returned with objections in the first instance, it was seen that there were about 70 to 80 pages, which had to be typed. Apparently, it took four years to type the said 70 to 80 pages.
7. Thereafter, it is stated that it was found that further objections were raised regarding requirement of filing fair typed copy of annexures and English translation of certain vernacular documents. This, again, appears to have taken five more years.
8. Resort to the legal process requires at least a bare minimum of due diligence on the part of the person approaching the Court. Four years on one occasion and five years in the next occasion, can hardly be sought to be explained away on the ground that certain documents were required to be typed or translated.
9. No ground exists to condone the delay of 3121 days in refiling the present appeal.
10. The application is, accordingly, dismissed.
RSA 43/2023

11. The appeal is also dismissed on the ground of delay in refiling.
CM APPL. 8964/2023 (Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC), CM APPL. 8965/2023 (for condonation of delay of 45 days in filing) and CM APPL. 21435/2024 (for condonation of delay of 3121 days in re-filing)
12. These applications do not survive for consideration and stand disposed of.

C.HARI SHANKAR, J
APRIL 10, 2024
rb
Click here to check corrigendum, if any

RSA 43/2023 Page 2 of 3