9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (2) TMI 665X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt and other Defendants. The Petitioner/Third Defendant resisted the suit claim by filing the written statement inter alia contending that the suit is not maintainable and the amount is not payable. After contest, the suit was decreed on 27-2-1998. Appeal was preferred with a delay of 131 days. By the Impugned Order, the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 131 days in filing the Appeal was dismissed. 3. Heard the submissions of the learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned counsel for the First Respondent. 4. Learned Additional Central Government Standing counsel for the Petitioner contended that the case records were mixed up with other papers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, [1987 (2) S.C.C. 107 = 100 L.W. 676 (SC)], a Bench of two Judges considered the question of the limitation in an appeal filed by the State and held that Section 5 was enacted in order to enable the Court to do substantial justice to the parties by disposing of matters on merits. The expression sufficient cause is adequately elastic to enable the court to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice - that being the life purpose for the existence of the institution of courts. It is common knowledge that this Court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this court. But, the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other courts in the hierarchy. This court reit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is directly hit or hurt by the judgment sought to be subjected to appeal) and the inherited bureaucratic methodology imbued with the note making, file pushing, and passing on the buck ethos, delay on its part is less difficult to understand though more difficult to approve. The State which represents collective cause of the community does not deserve a litigant non-grata status. The Courts, therefore, have to be informed with the spirit and philosophy of the provision in the course of interpretation of the expression of sufficient cause. Merit is preferred to scuttle a decision on merits in turning down the case on technicalities of delay in presenting the appeal. Delay was accordingly condoned, the order was set aside and the matter was r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lack of bona fides is imputable to the party seeking condonation of delay. In litigations to which Government is a party, there is yet another aspect which, perhaps, cannot be ignored, if appeals brought by Government are lost for such defaults, no person is individually affected; but what, in the ultimate analysis, suffers is public interest. The decisions of Government are collective and institutional decisions and do not share the characteristics of decisions of private individuals. The law of limitation is, no doubt, the same for a private citizen as for governmental authorities. Government, like any other litigant must take responsibility for the acts or omissions of its officers. But a somewhat different complexion is imparted to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 57 days, the Supreme Court has held that the State is an impersonal machinery working through its officers and servants and hence, it cannot be put on the same footing as an individual. The Supreme Court has further held that the public interest would suffer if appeals by the state are lost because of such delay in filing the Appeal and the court must decide the matter on merits unless the case is hopelessly without merit. 8. Pointing out the considerable time consumed in moving the files in Government Departments, in the decision cited supra, the Supreme Court has held as fol1ows :- ....15. It is axiomatic that decisions are taken by officers/agencies proverbially at a slow pace and encumbered process of pushing the files from table ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e should be made personally responsible for lapses, if any. Equally, the state cannot be put on the same footing as an individual. The individual would always be quick in taking the decision whether he would pursue the remedy by way of an appeal or application since he is a person legally injured while the State is an impersonal machinery working through its officers or servants..... 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the delay in filing the Appeal is also not an inordinate delay refusing to exercise the discretion. By refusing to condone the delay, the First Appellate Court has shut out the opportunity of preferring the statutory appeal. The delay in filing the Appeal is to be condoned, so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
