1998 (9) TMI 602 - SC - Indian Laws

Condonation of delay - Held that - Allow the appeal. In this case, explanation for the delay set up by the appellant was found satisfactory to the trial court in the exercise of its discretion and the High Court went wrong in upsetting the finding, more so when the High Court was exercising revisional jurisdiction. Nonetheless, the respondent must be compensated particularly because the appellant has secured a sum of Rs. fifty thousand from the delinquent-advocate through the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum

Summary

Issues:
1. Acceptance of explanation for delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act by the trial court.
2. Reversal of trial court's finding by the High Court in revision.
3. Sufficiency of explanation for delay in moving an application.
4. Compensation claim by the appellant against the former advocate.
5. Discretion of the court in condoning delay.
6. Interpretation of "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Analysis:
1. The trial court accepted the explanation for delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, but the High Court in revision reversed this finding, leading to the dismissal of the motion by the appellant. The delay in moving the application was noted to be 883 days, prompting the appellant to provide a detailed explanation for the delay.

2. The appellant's explanation for the delay involved the negligence of the advocate he engaged, who failed to inform him about the dismissal of the application in 1993. The appellant only became aware of this when he received a summons from the execution side in 1995. Despite filing for condonation of delay, the High Court, in revision, held that the delay was not properly explained, leading to the dismissal of the motion.

3. Additionally, the appellant sought compensation from the former advocate through the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, which directed the advocate to pay a sum of Rs. fifty thousand to the appellant. The trial court accepted the explanation for delay, but the High Court's view was that the delay had not been adequately explained, resulting in the dismissal of the application.

4. The judgment emphasized that the condonation of delay is at the discretion of the court, with the acceptability of the explanation being the primary criterion. The court highlighted that the primary function is to adjudicate disputes and advance substantial justice, rather than penalizing parties due to delay.

5. The court elaborated on the purpose of limitation laws, emphasizing that they aim to prevent dilatory tactics and ensure prompt seeking of remedies. It was noted that while there may be lapses on the part of litigants causing delays, this alone should not be sufficient to reject their plea. The court should consider all aspects, including compensating the opposite party for any losses incurred.

6. Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's order and restoring the trial court's decision to condone the delay. However, the appellant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. ten thousand to the respondent within one month as a condition. The judgment concluded by disposing of the appeals accordingly.