TMI Blog1975 (10) TMI 105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant which we now proceed to dispose of. The facts necessary to appreciate the controversy are minimal and emerge from the brief, though sufficient, discussion that follows. Brevity is not inconsistent with clarity and prolixity is not always or ever a virtue. The first fatal objection to the Government's case stated in the order of the High Court, is the ratio in a Full Bench decision in Bikram Das v. The Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, Chandigarh and ors. (A. I. R. 1975 Punjab Haryana 1) which holds that rule 3 relating to filing of Letters Patent Appeals is mandatory which, in this instance, has not been complied with, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal in limine. The second obstacle in the way of the appellant is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the learned single Judge's finding on this matter. That should put the lid on this appeal but the concern of the State is to set right the law regarding rule 3 above mentioned. Counsel for the State contends that a large number of appeals will be affected by the interpretation of r. 3 of the Punjab Haryana High Court Rules and orders, Vol. 5, Chap 2-C by the Full Bench in Bikram Dass (supra) A. I. R. 1975 Punjab Haryana 1. What is pressed before us is that r. 3 which requires, in terms, that three typed copies of (a) the memorandum of appeal, (b) judgment appealed from, and (c) the paper book which was before the Judge from whose judgment the appeal is preferred, is not mandatory, although the Full Bench has chosen to hold tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion as fatal. It is obvious that even taking a stern view, every minor detail in r. 3 cannot carry a compulsory or imperative import. After all what is required for the Judges to dispose of the appeal is the memorandum of appeal plus the judgment and the paper book. Three copies would certainly be a great advantage, but what is the core of the matter is not the number but the presence, and the over-emphasis laid by the Court on three copies is, we think, mistaken. Perhaps, the rule requires three copies and failure to comply therewith may be an irregularity. Had no copy been furnished of any one of the three items, the result might have been different. In the present case, copies of all the three documents prescribed, have been furnishe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion and grant further time for formal compliance with the rule if the copies fall short of the requisite Number. In this view and to the extent indicated, we over-rule the decision in Bikram Dass's(supra) case. The State has yet another hurdle in its way. In the present case, an application for condonation of delay in filing the three copies re queried by r. 3 was made and the Court, in the exercise of its discretion, held that such condonation should not be granted. Discretionary exercise of power by a Court cannot be lightly interfered with by a Court of appeal, and we are loathe, therefore, to upset the order of the High Court declining to condone the delay, there being nothing perverse or irrational in the exercise. In this view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
