Order No. 15 Date: 03-07-2017

Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Record is put up today for passing order in respect of the delay condonation petition of the Appellant.

By such petition, it is contended by the Appellant that the impugned order though passed on 03-06-2015, as the conducting Ld. Advocate did not apprise him of the same, he was totally in the dark.  It is further stated that post marriage, his Ld. Advocate left the legal profession.  What is worse, the petitioner was not handed over the case related papers to move appropriate Appeal.  It is also stated that for the purpose of obtaining the brief of the case, he had to rush to the matrimonial house of his Ld. Advocate and only then, he gained knowledge about the impugned order and in the process delay occurred in filing this Appeal.

I have heard the averments of Ld. Advocates of both sides and perused the material on record.

The instant Appeal has been filed after 79 days since expiry of the statutory period of filing an Appeal.  In this regard, position of law is very clear that delay can only be condoned if ‘sufficient cause’ is shown to prove the bona fide of petitioner’s diligence in moving the Appeal. 

On a glance through the petition for condonation of delay, I, however, do not come across any plausible ground being spelt out therein to justify such huge delay in filing this Appeal. 

The Appellant has principally attributed the delay to the alleged inaction of his conducting Ld. Advocate.  However, let me emphatically state here that Lawyer’s ground is no ground at all to justify delayed filing of an Appeal.  Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the concerned Ld. Advocate sat tight over the concerned case related file, one wonders, why he did not obtain certified copies of entire case record from the Ld. District Forum instead of wasting precious time courting the concerned Ld. Advocate to handover the brief of the case.  There is neither any day to day explanation as to the various developments that  reportedly took place from time to time nor any cogent documentary proof being furnished from the side of the Appellant in support of his contentions.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Tilokchand Motichand & Ors vs H.B. Munshi & Anr, reported in 1970 AIR 898 observed that, “If a claim is barred under the Limitation Act, unless there are exceptional circumstances, prima facie it is a stale claim and should not be entertained by this Court”. 

Where the petitioner has not come with bona fide reasons to condone the delay, he is not entitled to be shown any indulgence.  The extent of liberal construction should not be such that it may totally ignore the public policy on which the law of limitation is founded and thereby defeat the very purpose of the law of limitation.  `Sufficient cause' has to be of the type, which is beyond control of the party invoking the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act. This is not the case here. In this regard, reference may be drawn to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Collector of Central Excise, Madras v. A.MD. Bilal & Co., reported in 1999 (108) Excise Law Times 331 (SC).

I afraid, for want of ‘sufficient cause’ the petition for condonation of delay cannot be considered favourably.  The same is rejected as such.  Consequently, the Appeal stands dismissed being barred by limitation.