9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 1442X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time, as has been held in the judgment rendered by the Hon ble Apex Court in Brijesh Kumar Ors. Vrs. State of Haryana Ors., [ 2015 (7) TMI 21 - SUPREME COURT] . Thus, it is evident that while considering the delay condonation application, the Court of Law is required to consider the sufficient cause for condonation of delay as also the approach of the litigant as to whether it is bona fide or not as because after expiry of the period of limitation, a right is accrued in favour of the other side and as such, it is necessary to look into the bona fide motive of the litigant and at the same time, due to inaction and laches on its part. Thus, it is evident that the sufficient cause means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part in view of the facts and circumstances of a case or it cannot be alleged that the party has not acted deliberately or remained inactive . However, the facts and circumstances of each case must afford sufficient ground to enable the Court concerned to exercise discretion for the reason that whenever the Court exercises discretion, it has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d therein. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has further submitted that the matter may be heard on merit also for consideration of condoning the delay. 5. But a serious objection to such submission has been made by Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent CCL by making submission that when the appeal is barred by limitation of 687 days and as such, before entering into the merit, the consideration may be given to the delay condonation application. 6. This Court, after considering the aforesaid submission, is of the view that before entering into the merit of the issue, it would be appropriate for this Court to consider the delay condonation application and in order to see the sufficient cause to condone the delay and in case of condonation of such delay, it would be appropriate to look into the merit of the issue. 7. Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant writ petitioner has submitted that the delay of the period of 687 days may be condoned for the reason explained in the instant interlocutory application, wherein, it has been stated that the writ petitioner could not apply for certified copy of the impugned order in time du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties, rather the idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time, as has been held in the judgment rendered by the Hon ble Apex Court in Brijesh Kumar Ors. Vrs. State of Haryana Ors., (2014) 11 SCC 351. The Privy Council in General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corpn. Ltd. v. Janmahomed Abdul Rahim, (1939-40) 67 IA 416, relied upon the writings of Mr. Mitra in Tagore Law Lecturers, 1932, wherein, it has been said that: A Law of limitation and prescription may appear to operate harshly and unjustly in a particular case, but if the law provides for a limitation, it is to be enforced even at the risk of hardship to a particular party as the Judge cannot, on equitable grounds, enlarge the time allowed by the law, postpone its operation, or introduce exceptions not recognized by law. In P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala, (1997) 7 SCC 556, the Apex Court while considering a case of condonation of delay of 565 days, wherein no explanation much less a reasonable or satisfactory explanation for condonation of delay had been given, held at para ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dismiss any suit instituted, appeal preferred and application made, after the period of limitation prescribed therefor by the I Schedule irrespective of the fact whether the opponent had set up the plea of limitation or not. It is the duty of the court not to proceed with the application if it is made beyond the period of limitation prescribed. The court had no choice and if in construing the necessary provision of the Limitation Act or in determining which provision of the Limitation Act applies, the subordinate court comes to an erroneous decision, it is open to the court in revision to interfere with that conclusion as that conclusion led the court to assume or not to assume the jurisdiction to proceed with the determination of that matter. 10. Section 5 of the Limitation Act, on the other hand, empowers the court to admit an application, to which its provisions are made applicable, even when presented after the expiry of the specified period of limitation if it is satisfied that the applicant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within time. The court therefore had jurisdiction to determine whether there was sufficient cause for the appellants not making the application f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... already pointed out, the learned Judicial Commissioner rejected the appellant's application for condonation of delay only on the ground that it was appellant's duty to file the appeal as soon as possible within the period prescribed, and that, in our opinion, is not a valid ground. Thus, it is evident that while considering the delay condonation application, the Court of Law is required to consider the sufficient cause for condonation of delay as also the approach of the litigant as to whether it is bona fide or not as because after expiry of the period of limitation, a right is accrued in favour of the other side and as such, it is necessary to look into the bona fide motive of the litigant and at the same time, due to inaction and laches on its part. It also requires to refer herein that what is the meaning of sufficient cause . The consideration of meaning of sufficient cause has been made in Basawaraj Anr. Vrs. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, [(2013) 14 SCC 81], wherein, it has been held at paragraphs 9 to 15 which read hereunder as:- 9. Sufficient cause is the cause for which the defendant could not be blamed for his absence. The meaning of the word sufficient is adequa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [(2002) 3 SCC 195 : AIR 2002 SC 1201] .) 12. It is a settled legal proposition that law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. A result flowing from a statutory provision is never an evil. A court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation. The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same. The legal maxim dura lex sed lex which means the law is hard but it is the law , stands attracted in such a situation. It has consistently been held that, inconvenience is not a decisive factor to be considered while interpreting a statute. 13. The statute of limitation is founded on public policy, its aim being to secure peace in the community, to suppress fraud and perjury, to quicken diligence and to prevent oppression. It seeks to bury all acts of the past which have not been agitated unexplainably and have from lapse of time become stale. According to Ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he legislature. Thus, it is evident that the sufficient cause means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part in view of the facts and circumstances of a case or it cannot be alleged that the party has not acted deliberately or remained inactive . However, the facts and circumstances of each case must afford sufficient ground to enable the Court concerned to exercise discretion for the reason that whenever the Court exercises discretion, it has to be exercised judiciously. The applicant must satisfy the Court that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the Court should not allow the application for condonation of delay. The Court has to examine whether the mistake is bona fide or was merely a device to cover the ulterior purpose as has been held in Manindra Land and Building Corporation Ltd. Vrs. Bhutnath Banerjee Ors. (supra), Lala Matadin Vrs. A. Narayanan, (1969) 2 SCC 770, Parimal Vrs. Veena @ Bharti, (2011) 3 SCC 545 and Maniben Devraj Shah Vrs. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai, (2012) 5 SCC 157. It has further been held in the af ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ither way. 13. This Court, on the basis of the proposition laid down, as referred hereinabove, has considered the grounds as referred in the interlocutory application for condonation of delay of 687 days and in order to test the grounds shown in delay condonation application, paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the interlocutory application are required to be referred which read as hereunder:- 4. That the petitioner could not applied for certified copy of said impugned order in time due to communication gap and also due to covide-19 from 18.03.2020 to 25.02.2021 and lastly obtained the certified copy on 17.02.2021. 5. That, it is humbly stated that petitioner is poor, illiterate person. He could not arrange money to file instant appeal in time and lastly after arranging the money, he has filed instant appeal after delay of 687 days. 6. That it is stated that in above mentioned circumstances, it was not willful delay on the part of the petitioner/appellant but rather due to unavoidable circumstances beyond control of appellant, he could not move before this Hon ble Court in time. It is, thus, evident that the ground of communication gap in communicating the impugned order has been made. The gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
