Dismissed

Smt Bhoori Devi W/O Late Shri Bhimaram Yadav, v. Shri Bajrang Singh S/O Shri Ramchandra Singh

Rajasthan HC17 May 2024CRES/646/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing a restoration application. The court held that the appellant failed to show sufficient cause for the 1500-day delay, citing Supreme Court principles that sufficient cause is a condition precedent for condoning late filings.

What did the court decide?

The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was dismissed, and consequently, the restoration application was also dismissed.

Smt Bhoori Devi W/O Late Shri Bhimaram… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:26464]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Restoration Application No. 646/2015

¶4

¶5

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2366/2004

¶6

Smt Bhoori Devi W/o Late Shri Bhimaram Yadav, Aged About 49 Years, Residing At Village Wanio Wali Dhani, Nivana Via Itawa Bhopji, District Jaipur.

¶7

Badrinarayan S/o Late Shri Bhimaram Yadav, Aged About 33 Years, Residing At Village Wanio Wali Dhani, Nivana Via Itawa Bhopji, District Jaipur.

¶8

Prahalad Rai S/o Late Shri Bhimaram Yadav, Aged About 31 Years, Residing At Village Wanio Wali Dhani, Nivana Via Itawa Bhopji, District Jaipur.

¶9

Kaushalya Daughter Of Late Shri Bhimaram Yadav, Aged About 29 Years, Residing At Village Wanio Wali Dhani, Nivana Via Itawa Bhopji, District Jaipur.

¶10

Geeta Daughter Of Late Shri Bhimaram Yadav, Aged About 27 Years, Residing At Village Wanio Wali Dhani, Nivana Via Itawa Bhopji, District Jaipur.

¶11

Vidhya d/o Late Shri Bhimaram Yadav, Aged About 25 Years, Residing At Village Wanio Wali Dhani, Nivana Via Itawa Bhopji, District Jaipur.

¶12

----Petitioners

¶13

Versus

¶14

Shri Bajrang Singh S/o Shri Ramchandra Singh, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Vaishali Nagar, Near Khatipura, Kachchi Basti, Ajmer Road, Jaipur.

¶15

Shri Gajendra Singh S/o Shri Kan Singh Bhati, R/o Bani Park, Jaipur Presently Residing At 7A, Ravindra Path, Sriganganagar.

¶16

National Insurance Company Limited, Sriganganagar Via Zonal Manager, Second, 1 Block S Opp. S Claff Park, Srigangangar.

¶17

----Respondents

¶18

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. K.N. Tiwari. For Respondent(s) :

(2 of 6)

[2024:RJ-JP:26464]

[CRES-646/2015]

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

¶23

Order

¶24

17/05/2024

¶25

The instant Restoration Application, is preferred by applicants-appellants to restore S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.2366/2004, which was dismissed on 21.11.2009 in default by a coordinate Bench of this Court.

¶26

The office has pointed out a delay of 1500 days in filing the present Restoration Application and to substantiate the reasons of delay, application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed.

¶27

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 Restoration Application.

¶28

Learned counsel for the applicants-appellants submits that aggrieved from impugned order, the instant Restoration Application is filed after delay of 1500 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 applicants.

(3 of 6)

[2024:RJ-JP:26464]

[CRES-646/2015]

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the material available on record.

¶33

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 an appeal or revision or making an application within prescribed period.

¶34

In case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag Vs. Katiji AIR 1987 SC 1353, Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down the following principles to allow application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act:-

¶35

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

¶36

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.

¶37

"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.

¶38

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

¶39

There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of

(4 of 6)

[2024:RJ-JP:26464]

[CRES-646/2015]

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.

¶44

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.

¶45

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

¶46

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 statutory provisions mandate that applications for condonation of delay and applications belatedly filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation, should be rejected unless sufficient cause is shown for condonation of delay. The larger benches as well as equi-benches of this Court have consistently followed these principles and have either allowed or declined to condone the delay in filing such applications. Thus, it is the requirement of law that these applications cannot be allowed as a matter of right and even in a routine manner.

[2024:RJ-JP:26464]

[CRES-646/2015]

(5 of 6)

An applicant must essentially satisfy the above stated ingredients; then alone the Court would be inclined to condone the delay.

¶51

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.

¶52

Herein, even if we interpret the provision of condonation of delay in most liberal manner, even then it is duty of the appellants-applicants 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 applicant(s). Herein, the appellants-applicants 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.

¶53

Keeping the aforesaid principles in mind, we are not inclined to allow this application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay, thus the instant Restoration Application, is barred by limitation and there is no sufficient cause for condonation of delay, therefore, the application

(6 of 6)

[2024:RJ-JP:26464]

[CRES-646/2015]

under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, is liable to be dismissed.

¶58