2022 (2) TMI 1266 - HC - Indian Laws

Condonation of delay of 399 days caused in preferring Appeal - restraint from transferring, alienating or creating interest of any third party in respect of suit property till final disposal of the suit - HELD THAT - This is an application for consideration of delay caused in preferring Appeal from order. Therefore, the decision let into the condonation of delay as to whether there was sufficient cause or not are to be taken into consideration. The decision based upon the merits of the original case is concerned, has no relevance at this stage because this Court is not dealing with the merits of the case in detail at this stage. Merits needs only to be looked into with a view to see as to whether any legal right is available to the applicant herein or not. Therefore, the decisions relied upon by both the sides as to legality or otherwise of the impugned order of injunction is concerned, has no relevance at this stage. It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the Court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases delay of very long range can be condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory. Rule of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties - While condoning delay the Could should not forget the opposite party altogether. It must be borne in mind that he is a looser and he too would have incurred quiet a large litigation expenses. It would be a salutary guideline that when courts condone the delay due to laches on the part of the applicant the court shall compensate the opposite party for his loss. Considering the prevalent economy condition of the parties as well as even of the Country, the financial crisis can be considered to be one of the grounds for condonation of delay. The pivotal point of consideration would be whether the parties concerned has taken dilatory tactics in proceeding with the matter for initiated any proceedings or whether there is a malafide on his part or not. If there is a malafide attributed and established against the party concerned, then definitely even shortest delay cannot be condoned. It cannot be presumed that a person against whom an interim injunction is operating, would adopt dilatory tactics except in case of compelled circumstances or circumstances out of his control, he may not be in a position to initiate or execute or take appropriate immediate steps against the injunction operating against him - Therefore, it cannot be presumed that the applicant was not proceeding with the matter bonafidely or there was dilatory tactics on his part in initiating the proceedings of Appeal from Order against the impugned order of injunction which is operating against him. Therefore, in present case, the applicant has made out sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 399 days occurred in preferring Appeal from Order. The delay of 399 days caused in preferring Appeal is hereby condoned - Application allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Application for condonation of delay of 399 days in filing an Appeal from Order.
2. Financial crisis as a reason for the delay.
3. Opposition to the condonation of delay by the respondents.
4. Legal principles guiding the condonation of delay.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Application for Condonation of Delay:
The original defendant No.4 filed a Civil Application seeking condonation of a 399-day delay in filing an Appeal from Order against an injunction order dated 20.11.2018, which restrained him from transferring or creating any third-party interest in the suit property until the final disposal of the suit.

2. Financial Crisis as a Reason for Delay:
The applicant argued that a financial crisis prevented him from challenging the impugned order or developing the subject land. He claimed that through the help of friends and relatives, he has now gained financial stability and intends to develop the land. He cited financial difficulties as the primary reason for the delay and emphasized that refusing to condone the delay would defeat the cause of justice. The applicant referenced the Apex Court decisions in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy and State of Haryana v. Chandramani and Ors to support his plea for condonation.

3. Opposition by Respondents:
Respondent No.1 opposed the application, arguing that the reason for the delay—financial crisis—was not acceptable. They contended that the application lacked specifics and documentary evidence to substantiate the financial crisis claim. They also argued that the applicant exhibited total inaction, negligence, and lack of bona fides. It was also highlighted that the trial court had granted an injunction after considering the admitted position and documentary evidence. Respondent No.1 stressed that the suit property is ancestral, and the sale deed executed by the respondent No.2 was not for any legal necessity. They feared that allowing the applicant to sell or transfer the property would lead to multiplicity of litigation and urged the court to reject the application.

4. Legal Principles Guiding Condonation of Delay:
The court considered the legal principles for condonation of delay, emphasizing that it is a matter of judicial discretion. The length of the delay is secondary to the acceptability of the explanation provided. The court cited several precedents, including N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, which stated that the primary function of the court is to adjudicate disputes and advance substantial justice. The court noted that rules of limitation are not meant to destroy rights but to ensure timely remedies. The court must consider whether the delay was due to bona fide reasons or dilatory tactics.

Judgment:
The court found that the applicant had a legal right to challenge the trial court's order and that the financial crisis could be considered a valid reason for the delay. The court noted that there was no evidence of mala fide intent or dilatory tactics by the applicant. The court concluded that condoning the delay would not prejudice the respondents, as the interim injunction was still in effect. Therefore, the court allowed the application, condoning the 399-day delay, and directed the registry to register the Appeal from Order accordingly. No order as to costs was made.