2014 (3) TMI 1229 - HC - Indian Laws

Condonation of delay of more than 1 year and 8 months caused in filing Regular Civil Appeal against the decision given by the trial Court in a suit filed for relief of injunction - Section 5 of the Limitation Act - HELD THAT - The provision of section 5 of the Act has given discretionary power to the Court and the party applying for Condonation has no right as such. In a case the party applying for Condonation of delay may be in a position to show sufficient cause and there may be a ground in that regard which cannot be disputed. However, in such a case also the Court has to exercise discretion judiciously and the exercise must be to advance substantial justice. The Court is expected to give reasons for refusing to Condone the delay or for giving relief of Condonation of delay. This needs to be done in systematic manner as observed above. The reasons must be on the grounds mentioned to make out sufficient cause and there must also be reasons on the point of prima facie merits of the case and bona fides. In the case like present one, when there was no cause of action for the suit and the matter was already decided finally, the Court is not expected to use discretion in favour of the party applying for Condonation of delay. In such a case the delay does not deserve to be Condoned. The District Court has not touched the rival Contentions to ascertain prima facie merits of the case. However, the District Court has not Committed error in dismissing the application filed by the present appellants. The Appellate Court is not expected to interfere with the discretion exercised by the lower Court in allowing or rejecting the application for Condonation of delay, unless it appears that the Court has not exercised at all the discretion or the Court has not exercised the power - This Court is Considering the matter in second appeal and this Court has no hesitation to observe that in second appeal such interference is possible only in exceptional cases. This Court holds that no arguable case is made out, no sufficient cause is shown and there is no possibility of interference in the decision given by the District Court. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Condonation of delay in filing a Regular Civil Appeal against a trial Court's decision for relief of injunction regarding a house property dispute involving allegations against Survey Department and Municipal Council officers.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against a trial Court's decision in a suit for relief of perpetual injunction concerning a house property dispute. The suit involved the appellants, respondents from the Survey Department, Municipal Council officers, and neighboring defendants. The trial Court refused the relief sought by the appellants, alleging false records were created by Survey Department and Municipal Council officers in favor of the neighbors. The appellants claimed ownership post the demise of previous owners and contested the neighbors' claim to the property. The trial Court considered past suits and decrees, acknowledging construction by the neighbors, leading to the suit's dismissal.

The appellants filed for Condonation of delay, citing health issues and service obligations as reasons for the delay. The respondents contested, arguing no sufficient cause was shown for the delay. The District Court dismissed the Condonation application, noting lack of convincing evidence for the delay reasons provided by the appellants. The appellants failed to prove the necessity of the delay for substantial justice advancement.

The Court examined the principles of Condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, emphasizing the need for a 'sufficient cause' beyond the party's control. The Court must balance advancing substantial justice with avoiding unnecessary harassment. The discretion to Condone delay aims to prevent injustice but requires careful consideration of each case's merits. In this case, the Court found no cause of action for the suit, as the matter was previously decided, leading to the dismissal of the Condonation application by the District Court.

The Court highlighted the limited scope for appellate interference in Condonation of delay decisions, emphasizing the need for exceptional circumstances to warrant such interference. Considering the lack of arguable case or sufficient cause shown by the appellants, the Court upheld the District Court's decision to dismiss the appeal, as there was no basis for interference.

In conclusion, the Court found no grounds for interference, as no arguable case or sufficient cause was demonstrated by the appellants. The appeal was dismissed based on the lack of merit and failure to establish a valid reason for the delay in filing the appeal.