Dismissed

M/S Sangam Spinners Mandap and Anr. v. Surendra Singh and Anr.

Rajasthan HC8 May 2014CMA/327/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application for condonation of a 949-day limitation delay in filing a civil appeal regarding a motor accident. The court held that the appellants' claims of rural background and lack of awareness were false given the appellant's status as a public limited company, rendering the delay inexcusable.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay was dismissed; consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

M/S Sangam Spinners Mandap and Anr. Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

: J U D G M E N T :

¶4

S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.327/2014

¶5

M/s Sangam Spinners Mandap Bhilwara & Anr. Vs.

¶6

Surendra Singh & Anr.

¶7

Date of Judgment :: 8.5.2014

¶8

PRESENT

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

¶10

Mr. Mahesh Joshi, for the appellant/s. Mr. Sikandra Khan, for the respondent No.1. Mr. Vipul Singhvi, for the respondent No.2.

¶11

BY THE COURT:

¶12

Heard learned counsel on application filed by the appellants under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

¶13

This appeal is reported barred by 949 days. The impugned judgment was passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara on 27.4.2011, whereby the award has inter-alia been passed against the appellant.

¶14

The only reason indicated in the application which is supported by the affidavit of power of attorney holder of appellant No.1 – Company is as under:-

¶15

“4. That appellants belonging to rural area and appellant No.2 is driver and for work he is regularly going outside of Bhilwara for supply of goods of appellant No.1 and both appellants were not aware of limitation of filing appeal within time.”

¶16

It would be noticed that the appellants in the present

¶17

¶18

appeal are M/s Sangam Spinners, which is owner of the bus and Vijay Kumar – driver of the bus. The document filed alongwith the application under Order XLI, Rule 27 CPC filed by the appellant indicates that the appellant -M/s Sangam Spinners is a division of Sangam (India) Limited, which appears to be a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956.

¶19

Though the facts have not been alleged in the application, learned counsel for the appellants tried to make submissions regarding the counsel appearing for the appellants before the Tribunal not informing the appellants about passing of the impugned judgment.

¶20

Making further submissions, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is ex-facie incorrect and against the settled position of law and therefore, the Court should take a liberal approach and condone the delay.

¶21

Reliance has been placed on Movva Anjamma & Anr. v. Abhineni anasuya & Anr. : 1999(2) CCC 288 (A.P.), Mohinder Kaur v. Om Prakash : 1996(2) CCC 260 (H.P.), Sidheswar Sahu v. Arakhita Jena & Anr. : 1995(2) CCC 437 (Orissa) and on merits reliance has been placed on R.K. College v. Ramesh Chand & Ors. : 2007(4) WLC 229 and S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by LRs v. Jagannath (dead) by LRs & Ors. : AIR 1994 SC 853.

¶22

No reply to the application seeking condonation of delay

¶23

¶24

has been filed by the respondents.

¶25

I have considered the averments contained in application and submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants seeking condonation of delay.

¶26

From the averments made in the application, it is apparent that the appellants have sought condonation on account of alleged rural background and for lack of awareness about limitation, as already noticed, in view of the fact that the appellant No.1 is a public limited company, the averments on the face of it are false.

¶27

Besides the above, if the averments made in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay are examined in the context of the appellants, which averments appears to be absolutely baseless and incorrect on its face, to claim that the appellants belong to the rural area and the appellants were not aware of limitation for filing appeal within time, in the facts and circumstances also cannot be said to be a valid and sufficient reason for seeking condonation.

¶28

The lack of diligence and inactivity on part of the appellants is apparent. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Basawaraj & Anr. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer : 2013 DNJ (SC) 829 , after scanning the entire law on the aspect summarized, held as under:-

¶29

“15. The law on the issue can be summarized to the effect that where a case has been presented in the Court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the Court as to what was the “sufficient cause” which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the Court

¶30

¶31

within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona fide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No Court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condonation whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this Hon'ble Court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigation to approach the Court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature.”

¶32

(emphasis supplied)

¶33

So far as the oral plea sought to be raised by learned counsel regarding non-information by the counsel representing the company about passing of the impugned judgment is concerned, besides the fact that no such plea has been raised in the application, this Court in LRs of Tehal Singh v. LRs of Jagga Singh : 2014(1) DNJ 405 and Gauri Shankar v. Ram Sahay : 2013(1) WLN 559 has taken a view that such a plea accusing the counsel for not informing about passing of the impugned judgment and without any averment as to what all the appellant was doing for all this period, is not a sufficient reason.

¶34

So far as the judgments cited by learned counsel for the appellants are concerned. The liberal approach sought to be taken cannot be utilized for the purpose of encouraging the litigant, who seek to make false averments before the Court for seeking condonation.

¶35

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahanager Telephone Nigam Limited v. State of Maharastra & Ors. : (2013) 9 SCC 92 has categorically held that if it is found that the averments made in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act are false,

¶36

¶37

the appellants irrespective of merits are not entitled to seek condonation.

¶38

One more prayer has been made by learned counsel for the appellants that appellant No.1 is prepared to pay costs for condonation of delay. Having indulged in making false averments before the Court such a plea further goes on to reflect on the conduct of the appellants which cannot be continuanced.

¶39

In view of the above, no case is made out for condonation of delay. The application seeking condonation of delay is dismissed. The appeal is also dismissed accordingly.

¶40

(ARUN BHANSALI), J.

¶41

rm/29

M/S Sangam Spinners Mandap and Anr. v. Surendra Singh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Sangam Spinners Mandap and Anr. v. Surendra Singh and Anr.

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

Similar cases

Shri Oswal Srisangh Panchayat, Churu Vs Lrs of Balkrishan Bagla

Kanhaiya Lal Vs Gurudwara Shri Singh Sabha and Ors.

Sinjari Devi and Ors. Vs Norat Mal

Smt. Indra Devi Vs Aditya Singhvi and Ors.

Prabhu Lal and Ors. Vs Jamna Lal and Ors.

Heera Lal Vs Jeth Mal