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.