The court rejected a State application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal. The delay of 1 year and 7 days was found reckless and uninsufficient, and the appeal itself was subsequently dismissed as barred by limitation.
Application for condonation of delay rejected; appeal dismissed as barred by limitation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
Court No. - 27
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 125 of 2001
Appellant :- Union of India, Mumbai Respondent :- M/S Steel Authority Of India Ltd., New Delhi And Another Counsel for Appellant :- U.N.Sharma,Manoj Kumar Sharma
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
(Ref: Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application)
3. That on the basis of the aforesaid judgment and order dated 7.12.1999, the matter was being examined and at all levels, the same was to be examined whether to give effect to the order passed by the Tribunal or to file appeal against the same.
4. That initially it was decided that the amount involved in the claim petition is not excessive and, therefore, the judgment and order of the learned Claim Tribunal may be given effect to but later on a large number of claim petitions were preferred and ultimately it was decided that if the Claims Tribunal adopts the same procedure, then the Railway should file an appeal so that an authoritative judgment may come whether the Tribunal
2
was right in accepting the verison ex parte and ignoring the written statement of the Railway department filed in the aforesaid claim petition.”
"Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribe and the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds."
3
tactics and sleep over their rights. They must seek remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. The statute relating to limitation determines a life span for such legal remedy for redress of the legal injury, one has suffered. Time is precious and the wasted time would never revisit. During efflux of time, newer causes would come up, necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a life span must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The statute providing limitation is founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim Interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). It is for this reason that when an action becomes barred by time, the Court should be slow to ignore delay for the reason that once limitation expires, other party matures his rights on the subject with attainment of finality. Though it cannot be doubted that refusal to condone delay would result in foreclosing the suiter from putting forth his cause but simultaneously the party on the other hand is also entitled to sit and feel carefree after a particular length of time, getting relieved from persistent and continued litigation. 6. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. No person gains from deliberate delaying a matter by not resorting to take appropriate legal remedy within time but then the words "sufficient cause" show that delay, if any, occurred, should not be deliberate, negligent and due to casual approach of concerned litigant, but, it should be bona fide, and, for the reasons beyond his control, and, in any case should not lack bona fide. If the explanation does not smack of lack of bona fide, the Court should show due consideration to the suiter, but, when there is apparent casual approach on the part of suiter, the approach of Court is also
4
bound to change. Lapse on the part of litigant in approaching Court within time is understandable but a total inaction for long period of delay without any explanation whatsoever and that too in absence of showing any sincere attempt on the part of suiter, would add to his negligence, and would be relevant factor going against him.
2191 .
5
and such a case deserves a liberal approach. No hard and fast rule can be laid down in this regard and the basic guiding factor is advancement of substantial justice.
11. In Pundlik Jalam Patil (dead) by LRS. Vs. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project and Anr. (2008) 17 SCC
448 , in para 17 of the judgment, the Court said :
"...The evidence on record suggests neglect of its own right for long time in preferring appeals. The court cannot enquire into belated and state claims on the ground of equity. Delay defeats equity. The court helps those who are vigilant and "do not slumber over their rights."
"What needs to be emphasised is that even though a liberal and justice oriented approach is required to be adopted in the exercise of power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and other similar statutes, the Courts can neither become oblivious of the fact that the successful litigant has acquired certain rights on the basis of the judgment under challenge and a lot of time is consumed at various stages of litigation apart from the cost. What colour the expression 'sufficient cause' would get in the factual matrix of a given case would largely depend on bona fide nature of the explanation. If the Court finds that there has been no negligence on the part of the applicant and the cause shown for the delay does not lack bona fides, then it may condone the delay. If, on the other hand, the explanation given by the applicant is found to be concocted or he is thoroughly negligent in prosecuting his cause, then it would be a legitimate exercise of discretion not to condone the delay. In cases involving the State and its agencies/instrumentalities, the Court can take note of the fact that sufficient time is taken in the decision making process but no premium can be given for total lethargy or utter negligence on the part of the officers of the State and / or its agencies/instrumentalities and the applications filed by them for condonation of delay cannot be allowed as a matter of course by
6
accepting the plea that dismissal of the matter on the ground of bar of limitation will cause injury to the public interest."
7
Court No. - 27
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 125 of 2001
Appellant :- Union of India, Mumbai Respondent :- M/S Steel Authority Of India Ltd., New Delhi And Another Counsel for Appellant :- U.N.Sharma,Manoj Kumar Sharma
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
Since this appeal has been filed beyond time and application seeking condonation of delay has been rejected vide order of date, this appeal also stands dismissed being barred by limitation and for the smallness of the amount also. Order Date :- 10.1.2018 DKS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal by the State, where the delay was nearly 1 year 7 days and unexplained, satisfies the requirement of 'sufficient cause' under Sectio
Whether the explanation regarding a need for an authoritative judgment from higher courts regarding ex parte orders amounts to sufficient cause for condoning the delay.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
P.K. Ramachandran Vs. State of Kerala, AIR 1998 SC 2276Referred¶15
Brij Indar Singh Vs. Kanshi Ram ILR (1918) 45 Cal 94Referred¶24
Vedabai @ Vaijayanatabai Baburao Vs. Shantaram Baburao Patil and others, JT 2001(5) SC 608Referred¶26
Pundlik Jalam Patil (dead) by LRS. Vs. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project and Anr. (2008) 17 SCC 448Referred¶29
Maniben Devraj Shah Vs. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai, 2012 (5) SCC 157Referred¶32
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Union of India
M/S Steel Authority Of India Ltd.
Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
