2018 (3) TMI 1063 - HC - Indian Laws

Delay in filing appeal - time limitation - Exemption from payment of court fee - whether the delay of 3 years and 192 days in filing the appeal ought to be condoned or not? - Held that - Not for nothing is the statute of limitation referred to as a statute of repose. Limitation it is trite does not eviscerate the right; it merely extinguishes the remedy. It serves to sheath the sword of Damocles and is as such imperative and unrelenting. Subject to the relaxations statutorily provided periods of limitation cannot be ignored thereby revitalising claims which have been put to sleep with the passage of time. Jurisprudentially the concept of limitation is founded on public policy that an unlimited and perpetual threat of litigation leads to disorder and confusion and creates insecurity and uncertainty. The total delay on the part of the appellant in preferring the present appeal is 3 years and 192 days which stands candidly admitted by the appellant itself in the present Miscellaneous Petition filed by it for condonation thereof. That this delay is exorbitant goes without saying - There is no justification or explanation advanced which could convince us that in the interests of justice the delay of 3 years and 192 days on the appellant s part deserves to be condoned. No ground whatsoever justifying condonation of the inordinate delay of 3 years and 192 days on the part of the appellant in preferring the present appeal is made out - petition dismissed on the ground of delay.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Dismissal of application for exemption from payment of court fee.
2. Dismissal of the original petition due to non-payment of court fee.
3. Delay in filing the appeal and its condonation.
4. Legal implications of the withdrawal of the review petition.
5. Financial incapacity and its impact on the proceedings.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Dismissal of Application for Exemption from Payment of Court Fee:
The appellant filed an application under Order XXXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking exemption from the requirement of payment of court fee on the grounds of being an "indigent person." The order dated 4th October 2013 dismissed this application and required the appellant to deposit the court fee within two weeks. Failure to do so resulted in the dismissal of the original petition (OMP 375/2013).

2. Dismissal of the Original Petition Due to Non-Payment of Court Fee:
The appellant failed to deposit the required court fee within the stipulated period, leading to the automatic dismissal of OMP 375/2013. The dismissal was challenged in the present appeal, which was filed significantly late.

3. Delay in Filing the Appeal and Its Condonation:
The appeal was filed with a delay of 3 years and 192 days. The appellant sought condonation of this delay, attributing it to unavoidable circumstances affecting the directors of the appellant company. The court examined the reasons provided, including the directors' legal troubles and imprisonment, but found the explanations insufficient. The appellant had also been active in other legal proceedings during the same period, undermining the claim of incapacity to file the appeal on time.

4. Legal Implications of the Withdrawal of the Review Petition:
The appellant had previously filed a Review Petition (19/2015) against the order dated 4th October 2013, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 30th October 2015. The appellant argued that the liberty granted to withdraw the review petition implied condonation of the delay. However, the court clarified that no such condonation was implied or granted. The delay in filing the review petition itself remained unexplained.

5. Financial Incapacity and Its Impact on the Proceedings:
The appellant's financial incapacity was highlighted as a reason for not meeting the liability and suffering proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Despite this, the court emphasized that the statute of limitation serves to prevent perpetual litigation threats and must be adhered to. The appellant's inability to deposit the awarded amount further weakened its position.

Conclusion:
The court held that no sufficient cause was shown to justify the condonation of the inordinate delay in filing the appeal. Consequently, CM 11185 of 2017 for condonation of delay was dismissed, leading to the dismissal of the appeal on the grounds of delay without addressing the merits of the case. There was no order as to costs.