9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 1266X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases delay of very long range can be condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory. Rule of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties - While condoning delay the Could should not forget the opposite party altogether. It must be borne in mind that he is a looser and he too would have incurred quiet a large litigation expenses. It would be a salutary guideline that when courts condone the delay due to laches on the part of the applicant the court shall compensate the opposite party for his loss. Considering the prevalent economy condition of the parties as well as even of the Country, the financial crisis can be considered to be one of the grounds for condonation of delay. The pivotal point of consideration would be whether the parties concerned has taken dilatory tactics in proceeding with the matter for initiated any proceedings or whether there is a malafide on his part or not. If there is a malafide att ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent will not be affected and justice will be done to both the parties on merits. It is also contended that there has never been any intention on his part to flout any legal provisions or legal formalities and despite the best efforts on his part, delay has been caused only because of the circumstances beyond control. While reciting the decision of the Apex Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, reported in AIR 1998 SC 3222 and State of Haryana v. Chandramani and Ors, reported in 1996 3 SCC 132. It is prayed by the applicant to condone the delay of 399 days occurred in preferring the Appeal from Order. 3. The respondent No.1 has resisted the application and has submitted that delay is of about more than 1 year and the reason advanced for seeking condonation of inordinate delay of having financial crisis is not acceptable. It is also contended that there is not a whisper in the entire application as to how and when the applicant came out of such alleged financial crisis, if at all there were financial crisis as alleged. It is also submitted that the application is too vague and evasive as no particulars are furnished and/ or any documentary evidences produced in support of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... long with various decisions, which are taken on record, wherein the stand is taken that there is no sufficient explanation of delay and it needs to be dismissed. 5. Mr. Jaimin Gandhi, learned advocate for the applicant has vehemently submitted the facts which are narrated hereinabove and stated in the application itself. He has submitted the affidavit-in-rejoinder wherein he has submitted Statement of Bank Account as well as loan sanctioned letter from the private institution and other documents to support his version that there was financial crisis at his end and, therefore, the delay has occurred. In the written submissions also the same facts are narrated along with the extract of the decisions on which he has placed reliance. He has relied upon the following decisions: (1) Limbard Pravinsinh Ratansinh v. Takhatsang Banesang Nakum, delivered in SCA No. 14915 of 2011; (2) N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, reported in AIR 1998 SC 3222; (3) State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani, reported in AIR 1996 SC 1623; (4) Ram Nath Sao@ Ram Nath Sahu v. Gobardhan Sao, reported in AIR 2002 SC 1201; (5) Chhaga Ramabhai v. Heirs of Chhotabhai, reported in 1994 (1) GLH 16; (6) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under: It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the Court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases delay of very long range can be condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory . 8.1 In Para-10 thereof it is observed that: The primary function of a Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice. Time limit fixed for approaching the Court in different situations is not because on the expiry of such time a bad cause would transform into a good cause . 8.2 In Para-11 it is observed that Rule of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decisions relied upon by both the sides as to legality or otherwise of the impugned order of injunction is concerned, has no relevance at this stage. Further, reliance placed by learned advocates for both the sides on the ground of sufficient cause in condonation of delay, are the same. In all the decisions, pertaining to the view to be taken in application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay are principally on the same principle, therefore, any stand of referring individually thereof, the crux of the principle relating to condonation of delay, as is brought out from those decisions, can be summarised as under: It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the Court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases delay of very long range can be condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory. Rule of limitation are not meant to d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the said Appeal from Order is well explained or not. Now as the legal settled proposition which has been set-out here-in-above, considering the prevalent economy condition of the parties as well as even of the Country, the financial crisis can be considered to be one of the grounds for condonation of delay. The pivotal point of consideration would be whether the parties concerned has taken dilatory tactics in proceeding with the matter for initiated any proceedings or whether there is a malafide on his part or not. If there is a malafide attributed and established against the party concerned, then definitely even shortest delay cannot be condoned. It cannot be presumed that a person against whom an interim injunction is operating, would adopt dilatory tactics except in case of compelled circumstances or circumstances out of his control, he may not be in a position to initiate or execute or take appropriate immediate steps against the injunction operating against him. Therefore, it cannot be presumed that the applicant was not proceeding with the matter bonafidely or there was dilatory tactics on his part in initiating the proceedings of Appeal from Order against the impugned orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
