9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (7) TMI 387 - HC - Indian LawsCondonation of delay of 226 days in filing revision petition - sufficient explanation provided for condonation of delay or not - Dishonor of Cheque - HELD THAT - It is well settled by the Supreme Court that there cannot be any rigid ground to be held with sufficient cause for condoning the delay. The basic parameter for treating the reasons as sufficient cause is whether by not filing the case within the stipulated time framed right of any party is adversely affected. The Supreme Court in catena of decisions has held that the Courts should adopt a liberal and justice-oriented approach for condoning the delay. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties - Similarly it is also well settled by the Supreme Court that the condonation of delay must be on bonafide reason without any ulterior motive or any deliberately manner on the part of the litigant then only the delay in filing the application before the Court should be entertained. In the case in hand it is apparent that the petitioner was willing to prosecute his case with most sincerity and on the advise of his counsel he filed criminal revision before this Court directly and after dismissal of the same there was no communication by his counsel as such mistake on part of the counsel litigant should not be suffered. Moreover the complaint of the petitioner has been dismissed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate without deciding on merits as such sufficient bonafide reasons have been assigned by the petitioner to condone the delay. The delay in filing the revision petition is hereby condoned - petition allowed.
Issues Involved:
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. against dismissal of revision petition as barred by limitation. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Dismissal of Revision Petition as Barred by Limitation The petitioner filed a complaint under Section 138B of the NI Act and Section 420 of IPC against the respondent for dishonoring a cheque. The complaint was dismissed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, leading to a series of revision petitions. The Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the revision petition as barred by limitation, citing a delay of 226 days in filing the petition. Issue 2: Condonation of Delay The petitioner sought condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, arguing that the delay was due to bonafide reasons, including delays in receiving certified copies of orders. The respondent contended that the delay was not justifiable and should not be condoned. Issue 3: Legal Principles on Condonation of Delay The Court referred to Supreme Court precedents emphasizing a liberal approach to condoning delays to prevent meritorious matters from being dismissed. The Court highlighted that the doctrine of condonation of delay should be applied pragmatically, focusing on substantial justice over technical considerations. Judicial Precedents and Observations: - The Supreme Court rulings in Bhivchandra Shankar More case and Collector, Land Acquisition case were cited to support the liberal construction of "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay. - The Court stressed that delay should be condoned if there is no inaction, negligence, or lack of bonafide on the part of the appellant. - The judgment emphasized that the law of limitation aims to repair legal injury and should not be used to defeat substantive rights due to delay. Court's Decision: The Court allowed the petition, quashing the order dismissing the revision petition and condoning the delay. The case was directed to be restored for further proceedings. The Court clarified that its decision on condonation of delay did not imply an opinion on the merits of the case. This detailed analysis covers the key issues, legal principles, judicial precedents, and the final decision of the Court in the judgment.
|
