In a second appeal against the dismissal of a first appeal for limitation under Section 96 CPC, the court held that no substantial question of law arose from the first appellate court's exercise of discretion in not condoning the delay. The matter was disposed of without addressing the substantive jurisdictional question.
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 BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.371/1996
Versus
Shri Sher Singh s/o Shri Devi Singh r/o Village & Post Pirhak Via Nadbai (Bharatpur) Ex-Conductor Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Dungerpur Depot. ----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr.J.K. Singhi, Senior Advocate with
Mr.Amitabh Jatav.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.R.B. Sharma.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA
Order
09/01/2018
Impugned in the second appeal is the order dated 07.10.1994 passed by the Additional District Judge NO.5, Jaipur City, Jaipur dismissing the appellant’s first appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC) for reason of it having been filed beyond limitation and no ground for condonation of delay in filing the appeal being made out.
On the matter coming up before this court on 14.08.2007 the substantial question of law was framed as to whether the civil court had any jurisdiction to entertain try and decide the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent.
I am however of the view that prior to address on the
(2 of 3)
[CSA-371/1996]
substantial question of law as framed it has to be considered as to whether the first appellate court committed any jurisdictional error making out a substantial question of law in dismissing the appellant’s first appeal under Section 96 CPC while refusing to condone the delay of about 170 days in filing the first appeal and dismissing it on the ground of limitation.
The Limitation Act, 1963 has a public purpose and encapsulates policy of deterring litigation belatedly resorted to for reasons of the necessity of repose in human affairs qua a dispute. An appeal under Section 96 CPC has to be filed within 30 days of the judgment/decree passed by the trial court—aside of reckoning for additional time expanded in obtaining a certified copy of the judgment and decree. In the instant case the date of the receipt of the copy of the judgment/decree dated 31.05.1989 passed by the trial court on 07.12.1989 but the first appeal was filed on 21.05.1990 after 170 days. The appellate court has come to a finding that delay in filing the appeal set out in the condonation application was without good and sufficient cause.
I am of the considered view that in the facts of the case no substantial question of law pertaining to the dismissal of the first appeal under Section 96 CPC on the ground of limitation following the dismissal application for condonation of delay is made out in the present case. The condonation of delay in filing the appeal is a matter of the Appellate Court’s discretion. Nothing on record renders the discretion exercised by the First Appellate Court illegal nor any substantial question of law arises therefrom.
The merits of the second appeal on the substantial
(3 of 3)
[CSA-371/1996]
question of law framed in the circumstances needs no address.
There is no force in the second appeal. It is accordingly
dismissed.
(ALOK SHARMA)J.
Karan/30
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the first appellate court committed a jurisdictional error by dismissing the first appeal under Section 96 CPC for limitation.
Whether the substantial question of law framed regarding jurisdiction of the civil court requires address given the dismissal of the first appeal.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation through Managing Director
Shri Sher Singh s/o Shri Devi Singh
ALOK SHARMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
