2015 (4) TMI 1191 - HC - Indian Laws

Condonation of delay - maintainability of review petition - whether calculated from the date when the defendant became aware of the judgment? - Held that - Be that as it may, anybody pursuing a litigation ought to be aware of the proceedings pending before the Court. It is incumbent upon them to follow it up with their lawyer. At this stage, Mr. J.S. Bakshi, the learned counsel for the plaintiff states that an appeal was preferred by the defendant/review petitioner vide diary No.14538/12 which was returned under objections. Accordingly, the submission that the defendant became aware of the judgment and the decree in this suit only in August, 2014 is clearly belied. The review petition suffers from a huge delay. It is not supported by an application for condonation of delay. Hence it is not maintainable. It is accordingly, dismissed as being barred by limitation.

Summary

Issues: Delay in preferring review petition without application for condonation of delay.

The judgment delivered by the Delhi High Court addressed the issue of a delay of three years and eight months in preferring a review petition without an application seeking condonation of delay. The court noted that the matter was listed on 14.4.2015 but could not be taken up due to a holiday declared on that day. The defendant argued that the delay should be calculated from the date they became aware of the judgment and decree, which was in May 2014 during an execution proceeding. However, the court emphasized that parties involved in litigation should actively follow proceedings and stay informed through their lawyers. The plaintiff's counsel mentioned that an appeal was previously filed by the defendant, contradicting the claim of being unaware of the judgment until August 2014. The court held that the review petition was significantly delayed, lacked an application for condonation of delay, and was therefore dismissed as time-barred.

This judgment underscores the importance of diligence and awareness in legal proceedings, emphasizing that parties must actively engage with their cases and stay informed about court actions through their legal representatives. It highlights the crucial role of timely action and the necessity of adhering to procedural requirements, such as seeking condonation of delay when necessary. The court's decision to dismiss the review petition due to the substantial delay and absence of a condonation application serves as a reminder of the significance of procedural compliance and timely pursuit of legal remedies.