Dismissed

Anil Rai Trust v. Ifci and Ors.

DRAT15 Sept 2025REGULAR APPEAL/65/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal dismissed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning a delay of 114 days in filing an appeal. The court held that the appellant failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay, specifically regarding the period between the date of lost files and the filing of the appeal, finding no justification for the inordinate lapse.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act; appeal against impugned order dismissed as time-barred.

Anil Rai Trust versus Ifci and Ors. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | DRAT (2025)

¶1

Izu TI.iE DTBTS RHCOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUHAL AT KOLKATA (Holding Additional Charge of Debts Recovery Appellate Trihunal, Delhi) (Sitting at DRAT, Delhi)

¶2

HOF-]'ELT MR, JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVA$TAVA, CHAIRPTRSON

¶3

Appeal Na.S 5ft417 Arising out of Appeal No.6/201 1 (DRT-1, Delhi)

¶4

Anil Rai Trust Vs lFCl & Ors.

¶5

15.09 2025

¶6

Itenr Nc. 12

¶7

P res e r-rt Mr Mohd Akram (Virtual). Ld. coL,rnsel for respondent appellant Mr" Shreyas Mehra, Ld. counsel for respondent Fl

¶8

rH E" A^p P FLLATE__rRr E U NAL:

¶9

lA No B9/20i7

¶10

Heard Ld. counsel for the parties" This ls an application under $ection 5 of the Lirnitation Act for condoning the delay of 114 days in^preferring the appeal against the order dated 1 0.06.2016 passed by Ld. DRT-1, Delhi in Appeal No"6/201 1

¶11

Opposition has heen filed by the respondent Fl.

¶12

Ld, cour.tsel for the appellant would submit that the impugned arder wa$ passed on 10.06.201S, Thereafter. certified copy lvas applied for, which was ready on 15.06"201S and was recelved by the appellant on 21 .06 .2024. Ld. counsel far the appellant further $ubnnits that thereafter the appellant contacted his counsel fnr his opinion for filing appeal and he received oral apinion of his cCIunsel on 01.07.2Q16 for filing appeal. Thereafter, on 05.A7.2A16, the appellant requested i"ris counsel for drafting the appeal On 11 07 2016, counsel informed the appellarrt that his file was misplaced After re-locating the file on 24.10,2016, the appeal was filed on 21.11.201S. Ld. coun$el for the appellant^wouldsu'nmit that the delay was not intentional, but was due to the rea$sns mentioned^above, which were beyond his control.

¶13

sal-

¶14

-.2:-

¶15

Fer contra, the Ld. counsel^{for respondentwould suhmit that the appellant} has not *hown eny substantial^{causerequiredunderlaw and there is no} explanation for the time^{consumedby him from 11.07.?CI16 to 24"10.2016and} thereafter till the filing^{of the appeal}

¶16

It has been held by the^{Hon'ble ApexCour"t in Gollector,Land} Acquisition, Anantnag and^{Ors. vs. Katiji& Ors.} [{19S7)^{2 $CC 1CI7J that} application under Sectisn 5 of^{the LimitationAct the appellanthas to show} sufficient cause. In a very^{recent judgment ef the Hon'bleApex Courtin Sheo Rai} $ingh {DeceasedJ thraugh^{Legat Represenfatives& Ofherst1s. tlnion of} tndia & Another ff2023)¹⁰ SCC^{531lit has heen held that sufficient cause has to} be explained from the date the^{impugrted order wa$ passed.}

¶17

The Han'ble Apex Court in^{PathapatiSubba Reddy} {Died)^{vs' The} Special DepLNty^(LA1QA24 LiveLai,v^{(SC) 2SSl has referred to Collector, Land} Acquisition, Anantnag & Ors.^Vs. Katiji&^{Ors.(supra) wherein it was held that.}

¶18

'x xxxx ordinarily ff litigant does not sfand ta henefif^{by ldging an} appeal late; if rs not nsce$sa ry^{to xplainevery dajzs'dlay in fitingthe} appeal; and sffire sameflmes^{refus at to csndone detay ffiay resu/f in} throwipg ouf a mritarious^{maf ter, it rs necessa{/ in the tnferssf of;usflce} that carrs6 of subs tantial Tusfice^{should b* allowed to prevailupan} teohnica/ conside ratian and if^{the detay is riof deliberafe,il ougltt ta be} cancloned. A/afrr,,ifhstanding^{th* above, hotvsoever, liberal approachis} adopfed ln coridonrng f&e-^{de/.gy. ex-rg*n.q$gf.si{fficiqnfgaU$"tr' for 8g.{} &:.q tlie^appeal" in^{firye. ts a-gondfiollpl"eqe#"frf{pr exe,pl$iflg" fftp} discrefiorr ary_._.powe: tq^c.otdone, ,th^{dslay. The phrases'li,beral} approach', Jusfrce arinted^{apprCIach' and cau$e far the aclvancementof} 'suhsfan tiat justice' cannof be emplayed to defeat the^{law of limitation sCI} as lo allow sfa/e maiters or as a^{matter-of-fact dead matter ta be revivetl} and re-opsn ct by taking aid of^{,secfion 5 of th} Limitation Act."

¶19

It is further held that it^{must be horne in mind, while construing'sufficient} sfiuse' in deciding apptication^{under $ectisn5 of the Limitation Act, that on the} expiry of the^period of timitation^{prescribed for filing an appeal. substantive right in} favour of the decree-holder accrues^{and this right ought not to be lightly} disturhed.

¶20

Hon'ble Apex Court has alsc^referred to^{Basawaraj&Anr. Vs. Special} l-and Acquisition 0fficer, (2013i 14 SCC S1 whelein^it was^{hetd in paragraph} 23 that: s;l*

¶21

-: 3:-

¶22

"Tf18 discreflon ta condcne th* dfay has fo be exercised judiciusly based uparl ffte fecfs and clrcurnsfances f each ca-se. Ihe expresslon 'sufficienf ratrse' accurrins in Secfion 5 of the Lirnitatian Arf ran not be tibralty intrpreted lf ngligence, r?actionor lackaf bonafide is writ large. tt r4lss a/so observed that eusn thaugh limitatian may harshly affect rights af the par?tes but it l'tas ta be applied with atl ifs rigaur as prescnbed under the slafufe as flle courts havs na choice fiuf to appty the lauv as if sfancls and they have no power t* condone the delay on equitable gr0unds. "

¶23

Hon'ble Apex Court also placed reliance on paragraphs 12 and 15 of the

¶24

Basawaraj (supra) which read as under:

¶25

uf f **,12p.n',:r::,,r;:y;1fr1?nnTj'fi',#-:;;Y.y#:Z';;rTX.:,.;:x fhe sfait^rfe so prescribes. ThCI Court has na powar to extend the penod per of limitatian on equitable graunds. "A resLtlt flawing frarn a statutary provtsion rs never an evil. A Cauft has no pawr to ignore that proviston ta relieve vthat it cnsid€rs a drsfress rsulimg fram its operatin. I/,te sfafulory pravisiofi may caus$ hardship ar incanvenience to a particular party but the court has no clrorce but to ensilre it giving full effsct to the .sarne. The lgal rnaxirn dur lex sed lex which ffisans "the law is hard buf if rs ffte lat4t", sfands attracted rn such a situatian. lt has consisfenf/y besn he/d that,^{"incanvanience} ls nof" a decrsive {actar fo be considered while interpreting a statut."

¶26

"75. The taw on the rssus can be sunrmansed t* the ffect that wher a cas6 lias been presenled in the caurt beyand lirnitatian. the applicanf &as ta x.plain th courf as fo what r,yas th* "sufficlcnf ca#se" wltich ffieans an adequafe and enaugh re#son which preventd him ta approach the caud v'tithin limitatian" ln case a pa{y' rs fund ta be neglignt, ar for want af bana fid an his part in the facfs and circsrnsfances af the case, ar found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cailnat bs a luslrfred graund fo candone the de{ay Na cqur| gpttf"d he jqstifiqd in qondaniflg quch an inqrgjqA{e dqley hv.iffiposing:tny fiondj$qfi,,,Wllatsq*-vCIr. The applicatian ls to be decioed only within fhe pararneters laid dawn by fhrs Courl in regard to f&e condonatisn af d*lay. /n case there was no suffitient cause /o prevent a litigant ta approach the courl on time candaning the delay witltout any Tuslificatian,^{puttingany condifron whatsaever,amaunts fc passing an} order in vialation of the slafr;fory prorrislons and it tantamounls ta showing utter disregard lo fhe legislature" (emphasis supplierl)"

¶27

ln paragraph 26 of the Pathapati $ubba Reddy (supra) Hon'ble Apex

¶28

Court held that

¶29

"26. On a harmorrious consrde ratirsn of the provisions of th* law, as afcresatd and the favv laid Covun hy fhis Cortrt, it rs evirlenttha(

¶30

(i) Law of lfuitalian is based upa{} puhlic policy that there shauld b* an end to litigation by farfeiting the right to remedy rather tltan the rigftt ifself;

¶31

)Y-t':/

¶32

(i i) A right ar the renteCy thaf fuas not been exercised ar availed af far a lang tirne n;usf corl?e to an end ar osase lo exisf afler a ftxed period af time:

¶33

(iii) The pravisians f the Lirnrtation Act have ta be canstrud differenfly, such as Seclion 3 has ta bc construed in a stricf sense whsreas Secfton 5 has ta be corisfrue d liberatly;

¶34

{iv)^{ltr rder to advancsubsfanfial jusfice, tltoughlibratapproach,} ;irsfice-oriented^{approach or cause af ssbsfantial justice may be} kept in mind but the $ar7r6 cannof he used to defeat the subsfantra/ law of lirnitatin *antained in.Sec#on 3 of the Limitatian Ar{'

¶35

{v}^{Courls are #mpowered fo exercisedisc retion ta candone ffoe delay} if sufficint ause had &een explainetl, tsut that exercise af pwer is discretionary in nature and rnay nat b exercied s/en if sufficienf cause rs eslablished for various factors sutrh as, where there is inardinate dlay, negligence and want af due ditiE*nce;

¶36

{vi}^{Merely sorne personsobtainedrelisf in similarmatter, rf} does nof rfiean that ofhers are also sntitled to the sarne benefit if the court' rs nof sefisfied with fhe csuse shCImrn for thCI detay in filin,g th* appeal;

¶37

{vii}^{Mefs af the ca.ss are not requird fo be crnsideredin **ndning} th delay; and condaning the delay for the rea,son that the conditions have been lmposerl, tantamaunfs fo disr*garding the statutory pravision.

¶38

{viii)^{Dlay condonatian appticatinfuas} fn^{tse deided} on^fhe pararnefers lard dawn far candoning fhe de/ay and cofld$ffi9 the delay for the refrsCIn that the conclitions have beefi impased, tantamaunfs fo drsregarding ffue sfafutory prayision.^"

¶39

ln the present ca$e, the certified copy of the impugned order wa$ obtained well in time, which was delivered to the appellant on 21.06.t016. Appellant, however, $ought for the opinion of his csunsel Mr. S.K. Goyal, who gave his legal opinian on CI1"07"?016 for filing the appeal. Thereafter, appsllant requested him to draft the nremo of appeal, but his fite got misplaced in the office of the counsel. ltlo affidavit of Mr. S.K. Goyal has been filed on record to show that fite was handed CIver to the counsel and was misplaced in his office. Further, there is nothing on recsrd to show that file and certified copy of the impugned order wa$ re-located on 24.10.2016. No explanation whatsoever is available on record for the delay from 1 1 .07.201S la 24.1 0.2il16.

¶40

#l-

¶41

*: 5:-

¶42

Law is well settled ihat suffiuient cause has to be shown by the appellant for the condonation of the delay, lf that is not shown, the delay cannot be condoned. ln the pre$ent ca*e appellant has failed ts show sufficient cause far the delay caused from 11.07.2010 to 74"10,2016. I do not flnd any reason or ground to condone the delay in preferring the appeal. Accordingly, LA, No B$12017 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is dismissed.

¶43

Conseq uently, the appeal is also disnrissed as tirne barred "

¶44

File he consigned to record rCIom.

¶45

uaied 15ir S*t:lernoer i'135

¶46

*5d/ - -p {Anil^Kumffi,J} C ha irpe rsCIn l'-S.s Q.?-Pt-5

Anil Rai Trust v. Ifci and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Rai Trust v. Ifci and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kapil Puri and Anr. versus State Bank of India and Ors.

Indian Bank versus shandilya mohan murti and Anr.

Uco Bank versus M/s Nirbhai Textiles Pvt. Ltd.

Sh Vinod Kumar Jain versus Punjab and Sind Bank

Punjab National Bank versus M/S India Iron and Steel Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

The Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Limited versus Smt Sheela Devi