29.06.2017

MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA, HON’BLE MEMBER.

          The petition praying for condonation of delay is taken up for passing necessary order.

          We have heard the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant/O.P. and the Respondent/Complainant in person.

          Perused the petition praying for condonation of delay.  The records reveal that there was a delay of 91 days in preferring the instant appeal. 

          The Ld. Advocate for the Appellant submitted that there was a delay in collecting the order form the Ld. District Forum due to onset of Puja Vacation on and from 06.10.2016 to 16.10.2016, i.e., immediately after the impugned judgment and order was passed on 04.10.2016.

          As submitted, there was further delay in preparing the draft for statutory fees towards filing the appeal due to demonetarization.  The draft was erroneously prepared by the Appellant from HDFC bank instead of a nationalized bank which led to preparation of a further draft from the nationalized bank consuming considerable time further.

          Both the reasons cited above indicated only the indifference and lack of promptitude on the part of the Appellant/O.P. in filing the appeal.  The record revealed that the case was a contested one in the Lower Forum.  Free copy of the order was issued on 18.10.2016 i.e. after the vacation ended.  The appeal might have been filed within the statutory period of limitation even after obtaining the free copy which was issued immediately after the vacation by the Ld. District Forum.

          The delay in preparing the draft for statutory deposit for filing appeal first erroneously from a private bank cannot be accepted as a justified reason since it only evolves the Appellant/O.P.’s indifference and lack of initiative for filing the appeal.

          In the above context, we may refer to the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Basawaraj & Anr. – vs. – the Spl. Land Acquisition Officer reported in (2013) 14 SCC 81 as under:-

          “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 within limitation.  In case a party is found to be negligent, or for what of bonafide 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 condition whatsoever.  The application is to be decided only within the paramaters laid down by this court in regard to the condonation of delay.  In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condtion whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamount to showing utter disregard to the legislature”.

          It is, therefore, a settled position of law that the principle of sufficient cause is a condition precedent for the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction vested in the court of law.

          No sufficient cause explaining the delay for every individual day appears to have been submitted by the Appellant/O.P. on the instant occasion.

          We, in the above circumstances, are constrained to reject the petition for condonation of delay.

          Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed being barred by limitation.