9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 1203X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on for day to day delay was submitted after getting the permission from the legal committee for filing the revision in October, 2023. This Court in the case of STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS VERSUS ARPITA SHUKLA AND 2 OTHERS [2025 (1) TMI 1091 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT].] has not condoned the delay of 179 days. It was held in the case that 'The affidavit, which has been filed, does not give sufficient cause for the delay of 179 days in filing the appeal inasmuch as there are large gaps in affidavit wherein the period spent between 22.5.2024 till 13.9.2024 has nowhere been explained/adverted to despite, as noticed hereinbefore, the fact that the Court had granted only three months for the compliance. The manner in which the direction including time line, as indicated by the Court, has been taken and thereafter also the proceedings of the matter at snail pace cannot be countenanced in a case, wherein the direction by the Court only pertains to reconsideration of the matter by the appellants.' Conclusion - The reasons provided by the revisionist were insufficient to justify the delay. As a result, the delay condonation application was dismissed, leading to the dismissal of the revi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tee on 18.10.2023 i.e. after expiry of the limitation period, seeking permission to file the revision to which no proper explanation has been given. 9. He further submits that as to what reason, the proposal was sent after expiry of 24 days even after the receiving the letter from committee on 20.11.2023, no proper explanation has been given for the same. He further submits that the authorities have failed to explain the long delay of 205 days in filing the instant revision. 10. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No (s). 13348/2020 [The state of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. Vs. Chaitam Maywade], decided on 17.10.2020, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 31248 of 2018 (Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) By L.R.s. & ORS. Vs. The Special Deputy Collector (LA) and he further placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court passed in the cases of Special Appeal Defective No. 923 of 2024 (State of U.P. and 3 others Vs. Arpita Shukla and 2 others) and Writ Tax No. 639 of 2020 (M/s K.C. Flour Mill Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others). 11. After hearing the counsel for the parties, the Court has perused ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t had granted only three months for the compliance. The manner in which the direction including time line, as indicated by the Court, has been taken and thereafter also the proceedings of the matter at snail pace cannot be countenanced in a case, wherein the direction by the Court only pertains to reconsideration of the matter by the appellants. 5. In that view of the matter, no case for condoning the delay in filing the appeal is made out. The application seeking condonation of delay is dismissed. " 14. Similarly this Court in the case of M/S K.C. Floor (supra) in paragraph nos. 15 & 16 has held as under:- "15. The Supreme Court in the case of Office of Chief Post Master General and others Vs. Living Media India Ltd. And another, Civil Appeal No. 2474-2475 of 2012 decided on 24.2.2012 has held as under :- "13) In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said amount be also filed in this Court within the said period of time." 16. Further, similarly, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pathapati Subba Reddy (died) (supra) in para nos. 18, 19, 20, 21, 23 & 26 has held as under:- "17. It must always be borne in mind that while construing 'sufficient cause' in deciding application under Section 5 of the Act, that on the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed for filing an appeal, substantive right in favour of a decree-holder accrues and this right ought not to be lightly disturbed. The decree-holder treats the decree to be binding with the lapse of time and may proceed on such assumption creating new rights. 18. This Court as far back in 1962 in the case of Ramlal, Motilal And Chhotelal vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd3 has emphasized that even after sufficient cause has been shown by a party for not filing an appeal within time, the said party is not entitled to the condonation of delay as excusing the delay is the discretionary jurisdiction vested with the court. The court, despite establishment of a 'sufficient cause' for various reasons, may refuse to condone the delay depending upon the bona fides of the party. 19. In Ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (i) Law of limitation is based upon public policy that there should be an end to litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy rather than the right itself; (ii) A right or the remedy that has not been exercised or availed of for a long time must come to an end or cease to exist after a fixed period of time; (iii) The provisions of the Limitation Act have to be construed differently, such as Section 3 has to be construed in a strict sense whereas Section 5 has to be construed liberally; (iv) In order to advance substantial justice, though liberal approach, justice-oriented approach or cause of substantial justice may be kept in mind but the same cannot be used to defeat the substantial law of limitation contained in Section 3 of the Limitation Act; (v) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence; (vi) Merely some persons obtained relief in similar matter, it does not mean that others are also ent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
