Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.-

Although, the main appeal was dismissed, yet this case has been listed before this Court by the Registry in view of the order dated 25.11.2010 by which the Chief Secretary, Punjab was directed to order an enquiry against the concened official and to submit his enquiry report as well as action taken there on, if any,on the issue as to "whether the Land Acquisition Officer-cumACA- PUDA, Jalandhar, through whom the present appeal is filed has concealed this fact from this Court that certified copy of the impugned judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court was applied even after the expiry of period of limitation to file the present appeal and Is he not guilty of "suppresso veri and suggesto falsi" or is he insensitive to the Court proceedings and casual in the discharge of his official functions or he has connived with the plaintiff in not obtaining the certified copy in time to file the appeal within the period of limitation to help her in this suit for recovery.

2. The necessity to pass the aforesaid order arose because the main appeal was filed alongwith an application bearing CM-13205-C of 2010, under Section 5 of the Limitaton Act, 1963, for condonation of delay of 115 days in which the main ground was taken that "inadvertently the judgments of both the Courts below have been put in another brief in the office of PUDA, Jalandhar. In the month of October,2010, the same was taken out by the office clerk of PUDA, Jalandhar. In this process, a delay of 115 days has occurred in filing the appeal".

3. The Court had found that averments made in the affidavits of Harbir Singh, PCS, Land Acquisition Officere-Cum-ACA, PUDA, Jalandhar, were contrary to the facts on record because Civil Appeal No. 37 of 16.5.2009 filed by PUDA against the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 21.3.2009, was dismissed on 23.4.2010 against which the Regular Second Appeal could have been filed before this Court within the period of 90 days which had expired on 22.7.2010 but the certified copy of the judgment and decree of the Court below itself was applied on 02.8.2010 and obtained on 09.8.2010 but the RSA before this Court was filed on 22.11.2010, which means the averment that judgments of both the Courts below as alleged in para 3 of the affidavit filed along-with CM-13205-C of 2010 were put in another brief in the office of PUDA, Jalandhar and could be filed only in the month of October, 2010, was patently false.

4. In terms of the order dated 25.11.2010, a reply has been filed by Shivdular Singh Dhillon, PCS, Special Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Personnel, alongwith translated copy of the report of the Additional Chief Administrator (HQ), according to which, the Chief Secretary, Punjab, had requested the Principal Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Housing and Urban Development to enquire into the matter and submit the enquiry report alongwith the comments. The said report has been given by the Addl. Chief Administrator (HQ), PUDA.

5. In his report, the Addl. Chief Administrator (HQ) has submitted that Sh. Manu Dev Gautam, Advocate, had obtained the certified copy of the order of the Additional District Judge, Kapurthala, in Cross Appeal No. 43 of 16.7.2009 filed by plaintiff Narinder Kumari on 29.6.2010 instead of copy of order passed in appeal filed by Land Acquisition Officer, PUDA. It is alleged that "the said copy was not sent by him to the office, as such delay of 101 days occurred due to carelessness of Advocate". It is also averred that "the office at its own level applied for a copy of the order on 02.8.2010 which was received on 09.8.2010. Thus, delay of 101 days in obtaining the copy of the order from the Court does not appear to be malafide, rather it appears as a result of carelessness and mistake on the part of the Advocate".

6. The sum and substance of the report is that there was no malafide intention on the part of the concerned officer.

7. Besides the above, Harbir Singh, PCS, Assistant Excise & Taxation Commissioner, Ludhiana, who had filed his affidavit dated 22.11.2010 in support of the application i.e.CM No. 13205-C of 2010 for condonation of delay has also filed his affidavit dated 22.11.2011. In this affidavit, it is tried to be explained that Civil Suit No. 95 of 2002 filed by Smt. Narinder Kumari- plaintiff was decreed by the trial Court against PUDA on 21.3.2009, against which PUDA had filed Civil Appeal No. 37 of 2009 and Narinder Kumari had filed Cross Objection No. 43 of 2009. Both the appeal and the cross objections were dismissed on 23.4.2010. Learned counsel for PUDA had taken certified copy of the order passed on Cross Objection No. 43 on 29.6.2009 and handed over to PUDA on 30.7.2010. The officials of PUDA had realised that copy of the order passed on Appeal No. 37 filed by PUDA has not been obtained and therefore, it was applied on 02.8.2010 and obtained on 09.8.2010. In October, 2010, learned counsel for PUDA in the High Court had asked for certified copy of the judgment and decree of the trial Court which was applied on 20.10.2010, obtained on 28.10.2010 and the appeal was filed on 22.11.2010. It is admitted that the affidavit supporting the application for condonation of delay is terse, very poorly worded and does not explain actual and detailed reason. The reason assigned for it was that the official concerned was looking after the work of five departments and had signed the affidavit whatever was prepared and put before him.

8. I have heard learned counsel for PUDA and perused the record from which I have found that there is total insensitivity on the part of the concerned official who had sworn the affidavit because it appears that no value is attached to the Court proceedings and the affidavits are filed without realising its import that an affidavit is an evidence in the Court proceedings. No explanation has been given as to why there was a delay of about 105 days, after obtaining the certified copy of the order, in filing the appeal by PUDA. It is hardly a ground that the officer concerned was looking after five departments of the government at a time when he had signed the affidavit. Rather, it has become a mindset that who bothers about the affidavits filed in Court.

9. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the deponent has submitted that he does not want to qualify his apology or make an excuse for regretable lapse in his over all responsibility for ensuring proper and honest assistance to the Court, the concerned official Harbir Singh, PCS, is let off with a recordable warning in his ACR to be vigilant in future in dealing with Court cases.