9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 01st August, 2017. Alongwith the appeal, the appellant has filed the application for condonation of delay. 2. On the last date of hearing, notice in the said application was issued. The respondent has filed the reply. In the Original Application, it was submitted that there was a delay of 22 days, however, when it was pointed out to the learned counsel for the appellant that in fact certified copy was ready on 01st August, 2017 itself. He admits that the limitation should have been counted from the said date. He says that if these nine days more included, there is a delay of 31 days. 3. It is stated in the application that the delay has occurred as the appellant has lodged in the judicial custody since 28th December, 2016. He was not able to give proper instruction to the counsel in time. On the other hand, Mr. Nitesh Rana, learned counsel for the respondent states that it is a mala fide application as a matter of fact, the appellant has signed the Vakalatnama on 13th September, 2017 in favour of the counsel for the appellant ought to have been filed on or before 25th September, 2017. He states that it was the duty of the appellant to see that parkar must have filed the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SC 769; Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. v. Mst. Katiji and Ors.: AIR 1987 SC 1353; DehriRohtas Light Railway Co. Ltd. v. District Board, Bhojpur and Ors.: AIR 1993 SC 802; Dayal Singh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.: AIR 2003 SC 1140; and Shankara Co-op Housing Society Ltd. v. M. Prabhakar and Ors. :AIR 2011 SC 2161) 13. In the case of H.D Vora v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. : AIR 1984 SC 866, this Court condoned a 30 year delay in approaching the court where it found violation of substantive legal rights of the applicant. In that case, the requisition of premises made by the stated was assailed. 2. State (NCT OF DELHI) v. AHMED JAAN reported in (2008) 14 S.C.C 582 para-10 to 12 has dealt with the issue of delay. The same are reproduced here under:- 10. At this juncture, it is stated, at this length of time it would not be proper to set aside the order of High Court. 11 A. The proof by sufficient cause is a condition precedent for exercise of the extraordinary discretion vested in the court. What counts is not the length of the delay but the sufficiency of the cause and shortness of the delay is one of the circumstances to be taken into ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SCC 72), it was held that whether or not there is sufficient cause for condonation of delay is a question of fact dependant upon the facts and circumstances of the particular case. In Milavi Devi v. Dina Nath (1982 (3) SCC 366), it was held that the appellant had sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. This Court under Article 136 can reassess the ground and in appropriate case set aside the order made by the High Court or the Tribunal and remit the matter for hearing on merits. It was accordingly allowed, delay was condoned and the case was remitted for decision on merits. E. In O. P. Kathpalia v. Lakhmir Singh (1984 (4) SCC 66), a Bench of three Judges had held that if the refusal to condone the delay results in grave miscarriage of justice, it would be a ground to condone the delay. Delay was accordingly condoned. In Collector Land Acquisition v. Katiji (1987 (2) SCC 107), 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the provision in the course of the 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 as accordingly condoned, the order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the High Court for disposal on merits after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties. In Prabha v. Ram ParkashKalra (1987 Supp SCC 339), this Court had held that the court should not adopt an injusticeoriented approach in rejecting the application for condonation of delay. The appeal was allowed, the delay was condoned and the matter was remitted for expeditious disposal in accordance with law. G. In G. Ramegowda, Major v. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer (1988 (2) SCC 142), it was held that no general principle saving the party from all mistakes of its counsel could be laid. The expression sufficient cause must receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice and generally delays in preferring the appeals are required to be condoned in the interest of justice where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides is imputable to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... common feature. Therefore, certain amount of latitude is not impermissible. If the appeals brought by the State are lost for such default no person is individually affected but what in the ultimate analysis suffers, is public interest. The expression sufficient cause should, therefore, be considered with pragmatism in justiceoriented approach rather than the technical detection of sufficient cause for explaining every day's delay. The factors which are peculiar to and characteristic of the functioning of the governmental conditions would be cognizant to and requires adoption of pragmatic approach in justice-oriented process. The court should decide the matters on merits unless the case is hopelessly without merit. No separate standards to determine the cause laid by the State vis-a-vis private litigant could be laid to prove strict standards of sufficient cause. The Government at appropriate level should constitute legal cells to examine the cases whether any legal principles are involved for decision by the courts or whether cases require adjustment and should authorise the officers to take a decision or give appropriate permission for settlement. In the event of decision t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
