9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 1229X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 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. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ghanshyam and Laxman for possession of the suit property and the suit was decided in favour of Bansi and Hiraman. It is Contended that possession was actually handed over to their predecessors and so they are in possession as owners. 4. The trial Court Considered the record of previous suit like Regular Civil Suit No. 54 of 1963 and also the decision given by the First Appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal No. 108 of 1964. The Lower Appellate Court decreed the suit of Bansi and Hiraman though the suit was dismissed by the trial Court and this decision has become final. As per the decision of the First Appellate Court, possession of the suit property was handed over to Bansi and Hiraman. The judgment of the trial Court shows that the present appellants admitted that defendant Nos. 3 and 4 have made Construction over this property. The record prepared by city survey office and the officers of the municipal Council is also Considered by the trial Court and the suit is dismissed. 5. In the application filed for Condonation of delay, the present appellants had Contended before the District Court that there was sufficient cause for not filing appeal in time. They Contended that the per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t observed that if the explanation offered for delay is plausible, it needs to Considered. It is observed that, sufficient cause should receive liberal Construction. As the explanation offered was not Considered, the Apex Court decided in favour of the applicant. However, it is also laid down by the Apex Court that hard and fast rules cannot be laid down to ascertain as to what Constitutes sufficient cause . 9. There cannot be dispute over the proposition made by the Apex Court in the case cited supra. It is true that, the Court is expected to receive liberal Construction. In most of the cases, the Courts are not Considering the other important point, whether the Condonation is necessary to advance substantial justice. Condonation of delay in many cases unnecessarily causes harassment to the other side and it is found that in many cases the guiding principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court are not followed. To remind those principles it has become necessary to discus the principles, law laid down by the Apex Court. 10. Section 5 of the Limitation Act runs as under:- 5. Extension of prescribed period in certain cases.--Any appeal or any application, other than an applicatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s approaching the Court within time is sufficient. Here only it needs to be observed that the cause must have arisen within prescribed time and the cause must have Continued beyond that. In ascertaining cause, the test of reasonable man in normal circumstance needs to be applied. The burden in this regard rests on the party seeking Condonation of delay. He needs to discharge it by adducing evidence. 14. The Apex Court has laid down that the purpose of provision is to advance substantial justice and so the Court using discretion must prima facie ascertain whether denying of relief would amount to frustrating meritorious case and denying substantial justice. As care needs to be taken in this regard, it can be said that the expression sufficient cause is widely elastic. In one case, a ground may not be acceptable as sufficient ground for Condonation of delay but the same ground in other case, in view of facts and circumstances of that case, may be a valid ground for Condonation of delay. In one case if Court finds that the party seeking Condonation has arguable case, there is prima facie merit in the matter, the Court may hold on the basis of explanation given by the party that suffic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
