Order No. 4 Date:21-06-2017
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 stated by the Appellant that on 14-09-2016, when the impugned order was passed, he was out of station. After returning from outside, he asked his Ld. Advocate to prepare Memo of Appeal on 28-09-2016. However, as the concerned Ld. Advocate fell ill, he could not file it in time. In the process, the delay of 72 days (excluding the statutory period of limitation) in filing the Appeal caused.
Heard the Ld. Advocates of both sides and perused the material on record.
It appears from the Confonet Website that as the Appellant remained absent on 3 successive dates before the Ld. District Forum, the instant complaint was dismissed. Unfortunate though, in the matter of filing this Appeal also, lack of alacrity on the part of the Appellant is quite visible. It is stated in the petition seeking condonation of delay that he asked the concerned Ld. Advocate to prepare Appeal on 28-09-2016 which ultimately filed on 27-12-2016, i.e., after 3 long months. Not a single scrap of paper is filed wherefrom it can be ascertained the nature of disease that kept the Ld. Advocate out of action for such a prolong period of time.
It is the settled position of law that the proof of a sufficient cause is a condition precedent for the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court of Law. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condoning delay has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration.
According to Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. 24, p. 181: "330. Policy of Limitation Acts, the courts have expressed at least three differing reasons supporting the existence of statutes of limitations namely, (1) that long dormant claims have more of cruelty than justice in them, (2) that a defendant might have lost the evidence to disprove a stale claim, and (3) that persons with good causes of actions should pursue them with reasonable diligence".
In P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2002 SC 1856, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that judicially engrafting principles of limitation amounts to legislating and would fly in the face of law laid down by the Constitution Bench in A. R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, AIR 1992 SC 1701.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Basawaraj & Anr. vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, reported in (2013) 14 SCC 81 has been pleased to observe as under:
“The law on the issue can be summarised 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 want 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 parameters 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 condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature”.
No sufficient cause being shown by the Appellant to justify such huge delay, we are constrained to reject the petition.
Consequently the Appeal stands dismissed being barred by limitation.
