Ajay Dabra vs Pyare Ram & Ors.

HELD: 1. An appeal has to be filed within the stipulated period, prescribed under the law. Belated appeals can only be condoned, when sufficient reason is shown before the court for the delay. The appellant who seeks condonation of delay therefore must explain the delay of each day. It is true that the courts should not be pedantic in their approach while condoning the delay, and explanation of each day’s delay should not be taken literally, but the fact remains that there must be a reasonable explanation for the delay. In the present case, this delay has not been explained to the satisfaction of the court. The only reason assigned by the appellant for the delay of 254 days in filing the First Appeal was that he was not having sufficient funds to pay the court fee! This was not found to be a sufficient reason for the condonation of delay as the appellant was an affluent businessman and a hotelier. In any case, even it is presumed for the sake of argument that the appellant was short of funds, at the relevant point of time and was not able to pay court fee, nothing barred him from filing the appeal as there is provision under the law for filing a defective appeal, i.e., an appeal which is deficient as far as court fee is concerned, provided the court fee is paid within the time given by the Court. In terms of Section 4, an appeal cannot be filed before a High Court without court fee, if the same is prescribed. But this provision has to be read along with Section 149 of CPC. [Para 5][453-F-H; 454-A-E]

2. In present case, appellant is capable of purchasing the court fee. He did pay the court fee ultimately, though belatedly. But then, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the reasons assigned for the delay in filing the appeal cannot be a valid reason for condonation of the delay, since the appellant could have filed the appeal deficient in court fee under the provisions of law. Therefore, the High Court was right in dismissing Section

5 application of the appellant as insufficient funds could not have been a sufficient ground for condonation of delay, under the facts and circumstance of the case. It would have been entirely a different matter had the appellant filed an appeal in terms of Section 149 CPC and thereafter removed the defects by paying deficit court fees. This has evidently not been done. [Para 9][457D-G]

3. The whole purpose of Section 118 of the 1972 Act is to protect agriculturists with small holdings. Land in Himachal Pradesh cannot be transferred to a non-agriculturist, and this is with a purpose. The purpose is to save the small agricultural holding of poor persons and also to check the rampant conversion of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes. A person who is not an agriculturist can only purchase land in Himachal Pradesh with the permission of the State Government. The Government is expected to examine from a case to case basis whether such permission can be given or not. In the present case, it thought it best, not to grant such a permission. However, the purpose of the transfer remains the same, which is a non-agricultural activity. By merely assigning rights to an agriculturist, who will be using the land for a purpose other than agriculture, would defeat the purpose of this Act. [Para 17][461-F-H; 462-A]

Mannan Lal v. Mst. Chhotaka Bibi & Ors. (1970) 1 SCC 769 : [1971] 1 SCR 253; P.K. Palanisamy v. N. Arumugham & Anr. (2009) 9 SCC 173 : [2009] 11

SCR 342; Ganapathy Hegde v. Krishnakudva & Anr. (2005) 13 SCC 539; K.C. Skaria v. Govt. of State of Kerala & Anr. (2006) 2 SCC 285 : [2006] 1 SCR 274; Mahant Bikram Dass Chela v. Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab,Chandigarh And Others (1977) 4 SCC

69 : [1978] 1 SCR 262; Basawaraj and Another v. Special Land Acquisition Officer (2013) 14 SCC 81 : [2013] 8 SCR 227; Ashok Madan and Another versus State of H.P. and Other 2011 SCC OnLine HP 3885 – relied on.

S. Wajid Ali v. Mt. Isar Bano Urf Isar Fatima & Ors. AIR 1951 All 64 – referred to.