Govt of NCT of Delhi v. Rabindra & Company & Anr

V.B.GUPTA, J. Bisht

* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI CM No.14111 of 2008 & FAO No.328 of 2008 % Judgment reserved on:13th July, 2009 Judgment delivered on: 20th July, 2009 Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi, represented by the Executive Engineer Civil Building Maintenance Div.M-321, Junction of Ch.Braham Prakash Marg and Tarachand Mathur Marg Junction 1-A, Battery Lane, Delhi-110054. ….Appellants Through: Ms.Jyoti Singh, Adv. Versus 1.M/s Rabindra & Company Office at F-22-B, Mangal Bazar, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110091. 2. Shri Paramjeet Singh Sole Arbitrator Office of City Business Centre, 3603, Shyam Bhawan, Daryaganj, New Delhi-110022. ….Respondents. Through: Nemo. Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes V.B.Gupta, J. This order shall dispose of application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 (for short as "Act") read with Section 151 CPC for condonation of delay of 54 days in filing the present appeal. 2. Appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act against the judgment dated 5th March, 2008 passed by Addl.District Judge, Delhi. Along with it, an application for condonation of delay has been filed. 3. In application, it is stated that delay is unintentional and bonafide and there is sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Impugned judgment was passed on 5th March, 2008. Counsel for appellant in trial court sent, the certified copy of judgment on 27th March, 2008. The judgment was being examined by the Department for challenging or otherwise. However, restructuring of PWD commenced on 3rd May, 2007, due to which Divisions/E.Es were restructured and posted respectively. Jurisdiction of PWD-13 was partly transferred to CBMD, M3-21 and part of records were sent by E.E., PWD-13. This resulted in dis-location and dis-function in whole PWD. 4. Thereafter, file was moved for engagement of counsel who was engaged in June, 2008. Complete records were not handed over and discussion could not take place. 5. In mid-July, the matter was discussed between counsel and Department and some more papers and clarification were sought. Draft appeal was prepared on 12th August, 2008 and was sent for vetting. The same was returned on 28th August, 2008 to the counsel. Final appeal was handed over on 11th September, 2008 for signing and the same was filed on 17th September, 2008. 6. On 26th September, 2008, when case was listed before this Court, it was noted that as per office report, there is 106 days delay in filing the appeal whereas, application seeks, condonation of delay of 54 days. Learned counsel for appellant sought time to file additional affidavit explaining the entire delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, additional affidavit was filed. 7. In additional affidavit, it is stated that the restructuring of whole PWD commenced vide order dated 18th May, 2007, vide which Divisions were restructured and the Executive Engineers were posted. Some sub-Divisions were reconstituted vide orders dated 3rd May, 2007 and 22nd May, 2007. Due to restructuring, files were to be shifted. Some files were shifted from old Division to New Division, vide letter dated 2nd June, 2007. This process of shifting and handing/taking over of all the files continued till 4-5 months and, therefore, when judgment came, there was some confusion and it took time to collect the relevant documents to challenge the same. There is no intentional delay as whole Division was restructured and it was taking time to sort out the records. 8. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that since restructuring was being done in the PWD Department, that is why, there has been some delay in filing the present appeal. However, there was no intentional delay on the part of the appellant and since, appellant is a Government Department, it takes time for