2023 (2) TMI 1310 - HC - Indian Laws

Condonation of inordinate delay of 534 days in filing appeal - sufficient cause for delay or not - HELD THAT - The Hon ble Apex Court in Ramlal Motilal and Chhotelal Vrs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. 1961 (5) TMI 54 - SUPREME COURT has held that merely because sufficient cause has been made out in the facts of the given case there is no right to the appellant to have delay condoned. Thus it is evident that while considering the delay condonation application the Court of Law is required to consider the sufficient cause for condonation of delay as also the approach of the litigant as to whether it is bona fide or not as because after expiry of the period of limitation a right is accrued in favour of the other side and as such it is necessary to look into the bona fide motive of the litigant and at the same time due to inaction and laches on its part. Thus it is evident that the sufficient cause means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part in view of the facts and circumstances of a case or it cannot be alleged that the party has not acted deliberately or remained inactive . However the facts and circumstances of each case must afford sufficient ground to enable the Court concerned to exercise discretion for the reason that whenever the Court exercises discretion it has to be exercised judiciously - the explanation furnished in the delay condonation application to condone the inordinate delay of 534 days is proceeding to examine as to whether the explanation furnished can be said to be sufficient explanation for condoning the delay. This Court therefore is of the considered view that the reason assigned for condoning the 534 days delay in filing the appeal cannot be said to be sufficient explanation to condone the delay. The delay condonation application is hereby dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Condonation of Delay
2. Legality and Propriety of the Impugned Order

Summary:

Condonation of Delay:

The instant intra-court appeal is barred by an inordinate delay of 534 days. An application for condoning this delay was filed (I.A.No.1589 of 2021). The appellants argued that the delay was due to the COVID-19 pandemic and procedural delays in taking a final decision. However, the respondents contended that no sufficient ground was provided for the delay.

The Court emphasized that the Law of Limitation is enshrined in the legal maxim "interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium" and that rules of limitation are meant to ensure that legal remedies are pursued within a legislatively fixed period. The Court referred to several precedents, including Brijesh Kumar & Ors. Vrs. State of Haryana & Ors., (2014) 11 SCC 351, and P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala, (1997) 7 SCC 556, to highlight that delay should not be condoned without sufficient cause.

The Court noted that the order impugned was passed on 22.08.2019 in the presence of the State's counsel, but the application for a certified copy was filed only on 24.02.2021, with no sufficient explanation for this delay. The Court found that the appellants' claim of not knowing about the order until much later was incorrect and that the reasons provided for the delay were not sufficient.

Consequently, the Court dismissed the delay condonation application (I.A. No.1589 of 2021) and, as a result, the Letters Patent Appeal also stood dismissed. The interim order dated 19.01.2023 was vacated.

Legality and Propriety of the Impugned Order:

Given the dismissal of the delay condonation application, the Court did not proceed to examine the legality and propriety of the impugned order on its merits.