Dismissed

Naolin Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. v. Firm M/S Kalpana Industries

Rajasthan HC13 Feb 2024CR/37/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed a Section 5 of the Limitation Act application seeking condonation of a 548-day delay in filing a Civil Revision Petition, holding that the petitioners failed to establish sufficient cause for the delay.

What did the court decide?

The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was dismissed; consequently, the Civil Revision Petition was also dismissed as being barred by limitation.

Naolin Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. Vs Firm M/S… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:26428]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 37/2024

¶4

Naolin Infrastructure Pvt.ltd., 6-3-1090/1/1/3, Third Floor, Uma Hyderabad House Rajbhavan Road, Somaji Guda Hyderabad, Post And District Hyderabad, Telangana (India) 500082 (Telangana) (India) Through Its Director Mr. Devineni Narasimha Pratap Chowdary Tel.-040230000391 Mail. [email protected].

¶5

Shri Prabhakar Reddy Nallapu S/o Nallapuvenkat Reddy, Director Of Naolin Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 6-31090/1/1/3, Third Floor, Uma Hyderabad House Rajbhavan Road, Somaji Guda, Hyderabad, Post And District Hyderabad, Telangana (India) 500082 And Resident Of 2-2-18/19 Flat No.102, Sai Anupurnaa Apartment, D.d. Colony, Baag Amarpet, Hyderabad Post And District Hyderabad Telangana (India) 500013 Mob. No. 9000444234 E-Mail Id. [email protected].

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Firm M/s Kalpana Industries, F. 11 Industries Area (Audhyogik Kshetra) Jhunjhunu, Post- Jhunjhunu, District Jhunjhunu Rajasthan Through Partner Kapil Gadiya Aged 54 Years S/o Shri Gopichand Gadiya R/o Adarsh Nagar, Road No.3, Jhunjhunu Post Jhunjhunu Tehsil And District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) 333001 Mob. No. 9414082577 Email [email protected].

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Divanshu Gupta.
For Respondent(s)	:

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

¶12

Order

¶13

13/02/2024

¶14

The instant Revision Petition, is preferred aggrieved from order dated 06.04.2022 in Civil Suit No.06/2020 (CIS No.

(2 of 6)

[2024:RJ-JP:26428]

[CR-37/2024]

39/2020) passed by learned Addl. District Judge No.2, Jhunjhunu.

¶19

The office has pointed out a delay of 548 days in filing the present Revision Petition and to substantiate the reasons of delay, application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed.

¶20

By this order, we are only considering and disposing of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay and the consequential effect on the instant Revision Petition.

¶21

Learned counsel for the applicant-petitioners submits that aggrieved from impugned order, the instant Revision Petition is filed after delay of 548 days, which was beyond control of the effected party. He also submitted that Section 5 of the Limitation Act must be given a liberal construction, so that a party may not suffer due to technicalities. He also submits that the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed for condonation of delay and the reasons are supported with an affidavit and no contrary material is available to disbelieve the grounds raised by the applicant(s).

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred the judgment dated 02.02.2024 in case of Arbitration Application No. 162/2023 passed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice of Telangana High Court, wherein a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of cognizance for extension of limitation was considered and exclusion of time was allowed

(3 of 6)

[2024:RJ-JP:26428]

[CR-37/2024]

from 15.03.2020 to May, 2022. We have considered the

¶27

period of relaxation as allowed by Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material available on record and also perused the judgment as referred by learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶29

Section 5 of the Limitation Act prescribes that any appeal or revision or an application may be admitted after the prescribed period, if the appellant or the petitioner satisfies the Court on sufficient cause for not preferring appeal or revision or making application within prescribed period.

¶30

In case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag Vs.

¶31

Katiji AIR 1987 SC 1353, Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down the following principles to allow application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act:-

¶32

Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.

¶33

Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.

¶34

"Every days delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hours delay. every seconds delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner.

¶35

When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have

(4 of 6)

[2024:RJ-JP:26428]

[CR-37/2024]

vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.

¶40

There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk.

¶41

It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.

¶42

In case of Balwant Singh (dead) Vs. Jagdish Singh and

¶43

Ors. 2010 (8) SCC 685 , Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering Section 5 of Limitation Act has referred the judgment in the case of Union of India Vs. Ram Charan AIR 1964 SC 215 and observed that the explained delay should be clearly understood in contradistinction to inordinate unexplained delay. Delay is just one of the ingredients which has to be considered by the Court. In addition to this, the Court must also take into account the conduct of the parties, bona fide reasons for condonation of delay and whether such delay could easily be avoided by the applicant acting with normal care and caution. The requirement of law is that the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be allowed as a matter of right and even in a routine manner. An applicant must essentially satisfy the above stated ingredients; then alone the Court would be inclined to condone the delay.

(5 of 6)

[2024:RJ-JP:26428]

[CR-37/2024]

In the case of Brijesh Kumar & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.: (2014) 13 SCC 291 , while referring the judgment of Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy & Ors.: (2013) 12 SCC 649 , Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that sufficient cause is a condition precedent for exercise of discretion by the Court for condonation of delay. The Supreme Court further observed that the Court cannot condone the delay, if it is not properly, satisfactorily and convincingly explained, and a delay cannot be condoned on sympathetic grounds.

¶48

Herein, even if we interpret the provision of condonation of delay in most liberal manner, even then it is duty of the appellant(s)/petitioner(s) to atleast show “sufficient cause” for condonation of delay. In the entire application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, not a single ground was mentioned, which were beyond the control of petitioners. Herein, the petitioners have failed to show any reason or ground for which they could not be blamed. Thus, no sufficient cause was shown for condonation of delay.

¶49

Aggrieved from judgment dated 06.04.2022, instant Civil Revision Petition is filed on 04.01.2024. Even after May, 2022, there is huge delay and same is not very well explained in the application. The application sans the reasons to explain delay beyond May, 2022. The judgment as referred is not much helpful for the applicants.u4

¶50

Keeping the aforesaid principles in mind, we are not inclined to allow this application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act

(6 of 6)

[2024:RJ-JP:26428]

[CR-37/2024]

for condonation of delay, thus the instant Revision Petition, is barred by limitation and there is no sufficient cause for condonation of delay, therefore, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, is liable to be dismissed.

¶55

Consequently, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, is hereby dismissed.

¶56

As a result, the instant Civil Revision Petition, which is filed after a delay of 548 days, is also dismissed.

¶57

Misc. application(s), if any, stands disposed.

¶58

No order as to costs.

¶59

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

¶60

PKS/78

Naolin Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. v. Firm M/S Kalpana Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naolin Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. v. Firm M/S Kalpana Industries

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

Ram Nath Vs Prakash Chand Jain and Another

Smt. Champa Devi W/O Sh. Harish Chand Vs Smt. Saraswati Devi W/O Nathulal

Natwar Lal Vs State

Pooran Soni S/O Shri Bhanwar Lal Soni, Vs Arvind Kumar Sarraf S/O Shri Devakinandan Agarwal

Hemraj Son of Shri Ram Lal, Vs Murad Khan @ Pappu S/O Sh. Nanne Khan

Smt Kamlesh Sharma Vs Ashok Jain