The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed a second appeal filed 1484 days late for specific performance. The bench rejected the application to condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as the explanation was vague and the cause insufficient.
Application for condonation of delay rejected; appeal rejected.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 188/2018
----Appellants
Versus
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vishal Thakur
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA
Order
17/12/2018
Appellant-plaintiffs, by the instant second appeal, have challenged judgment and decree dated 12.05.2014, passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge No.2, Bikaner (for short, ‘learned lower appellate Court’), whereby learned lower appellate Court has affirmed judgment and decree dated 21.08.2007, passed by Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division) No.3, Bikaner (for short, ‘learned trial Court’) dismissing suit of the appellants for specific performance of contract & perpetual injunction.
(2 of 3)
[CSA-188/2018]
The appeal against concurrent findings of both the Courts below is presented after delay of 1484 days. In order to wriggle out from delay, appellants have preferred an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, wherein essentially it is pleaded that appellant No.1-Adisal Singh is 92 years old and after filing of the appeal before learned lower appellate Court he has shifted permanent abode to Haryana. It is also averred that he was unaware about the judgment rendered by learned lower appellate Court and came to know about the same when he returned back to Bikaner on Ramnavmi festival.
Upon perusal of the averments made in the application, it is abundantly clear that same are absolutely vague, cryptic and unspecific. Although, appellant No.1 has stated that he visited Bikaner on Ramnavmi but in which year is conspicuously missing in the application. True it is that appellant No.1 is 92 years old but appellant No.2-Chameli is only 45 years of age. Although an attempt is made to castigate the lawyer representing the cause of the appellants before learned lower appellate Court that he did not conveyed him about the decision but those allegations too are not convincing so as to inspire confidence of the Court.
While considering the application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, normally, the Courts adopt very pragmatic approach rather than pedantic and purely idealistic but then delay cannot be condoned for mere askance. The law of Limitation is based on public policy and an indolent litigant, cannot be granted indulgence by Court in the matter of condonation of delay, more particularly, when the delay is inordinate.
(3 of 3)
[CSA-188/2018]
In the instant case, delay is of 1484 days and the explanation, which is forthcoming from the application is not spelling out good and sufficient cause to construe the term “sufficient cause” liberally for advancement of justice.
In view thereof, I feel disinclined to condone the delay. Consequently, the application fails and same is hereby rejected, which entails rejection of the appeal also.
(P.K. LOHRA),J
39-T.Singh/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay of 1484 days in filing the second appeal for specific performance warrants condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Whether the vague and unsubstantiated explanation provided by the appellants constitutes sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Adisal Singh
Chameli
Prem Singh
Ranjeet Singh
P.K. LOHRA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
