Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 871 of 2008
PETITIONER:
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
RESPONDENT:
CAMRUS ZAMAN GHAFUR PARIAT
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 31/01/2008
BENCH:
H.K. SEMA & MARKANDEY KATJU
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
O R D E R
CIVIL APPEAL NO.871 OF 2008
[Arising out of SLP(C)No.1683 of 2006]
Leave granted.
Heard the parties at length.
In appeal preferred by Union of India before the District Judge, it is alleged that
there was a delay of 447/523 days. The District Judge after considering the facts and circ
umstances
supported by elaborate reasons condoned the delay. The High Court, however, in revision app
lication
filed under Section 115 of C.P.C. interfered with the order of the District Judge and revers
ed the
decision.
It is now settled law that condonation of delay is the discretionary power of the
Court. If the Court of the first instance exercises the discretionary power and has condone
d the delay
or refused to condone the delay, the appellate court normally does not interfere. In the p
resent case,
the District Judge has condoned the delay after taking into consideration the facts and circ
umstance
recited in the condonation application supported by reasons, allowed
-2-
Section 5 of the Limitation application. The High Court should have restrained in such matt
ers to
interfere with the discretionary power of the court of the first instance.
We accordingly, set aside the order of the High Court. The order passed by the
District Judge is restored. The appeal now is restored to the file of District Judge, for
disposal on
merit and in accordance with law. The appeal may be expedited.
The appeal is disposed of.