1980 (2) TMI 270 - HC - Indian Laws

Appeal dismissed for delay and improper filing by unauthorized person. Respondent's objections upheld.

The Court rejected the appeal due to the delay in applying for the certificate and the improper presentation of the special appeal by an unauthorized ... - Issues:1. Competency of the certificate granted by the learned single Judge for appeal.2. Presentation of the special appeal by a competent person.Competency of Certificate for Appeal:The judgment in question involved a special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance. The appeal stemmed from a decree in a civil suit where the plaintiff's appeal was allowed, and the suit was decreed for a specific amount with interest. The respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the competency of the certificate granted by the single Judge for appeal. The respondent argued that the certificate was incompetent as it was granted after the prescribed time limit had expired. The relevant Rule 97 of the Court's Rules was examined, which mandated that an application for leave for appeal must be made before or at the time the judgment is delivered. The rule explicitly stated that no such application shall be entertained later. The appellant contended that the rule did not bar written applications after the judgment, citing precedents. However, the Court interpreted the rule to require the application to be made before or at the time of judgment delivery. The Court held that the application in this case was delayed and did not meet the rule's requirements. The Court also analyzed a Madhya Pradesh High Court decision on a similar issue for reference.Condonation of Delay and Competency of the Certificate:The appellant argued that the delay in applying for the certificate could have been condoned by the single Judge. The Court acknowledged that there could be genuine reasons for delay, such as a party's unavailability during judgment pronouncement. The Court examined the application submitted by the appellant, which cited the absence of the respondent's counsel during judgment delivery as the reason for the delay in seeking the certificate. However, the Court found this reason insufficient for condonation of delay. The Court noted that the order granting leave was brief and did not indicate condonation of delay. Despite the grant of the certificate, the Court held that a case for condonation of delay was not established. Therefore, the Court concluded that the appellant was not entitled to have the delay condoned, leading to the revocation of the certificate.Presentation of Special Appeal by a Competent Person:The second issue raised was regarding the presentation of the special appeal by a competent person. The respondent contended that the special appeal was not presented by a competent individual authorized by the appellants. It was established that the special appeal was filed by a person who lacked the necessary authority from the appellants. The Court found this factual position indisputable, and the appellant failed to counter it. The Court emphasized that the presentation of an appeal required written authorization, which was absent in this case. As there was no evidence of authorization for the individual who presented the appeal, the Court deemed the presentation of the appeal improper and incompetent. Consequently, the Court upheld this preliminary objection as well, leading to the rejection of the appeal.In conclusion, both preliminary objections regarding the competency of the certificate for appeal and the presentation of the special appeal by an authorized individual were upheld by the Court. As a result, the appeal was rejected, and no costs were awarded in the matter.