2020 (2) TMI 1609 - HC - Indian Laws

Condonation of delay of 263 days in filing the appeal suit - reason for delay stated is that learned counsel lost the certified copies of the case paper handed over to him and could not trace the case papers despite the effort taken and during April 2017 the case papers were traced out and thereafter the first appeal is filed - HELD THAT - The reason stated is not only flimsy but also shows the casual attitude of the petitioner. The parties who would like to prefer an appeal against the judgment and decree are expected to be vigilant. If such a casual approach is encouraged then this Court is of the opinion that the very principles set out in the law of limitation will be defeated. Law of limitation being a substantive law the appeals are to be filed within a time limit. Filing an appeal within a period of limitation is the rule and condonation of delay is an exception. Thus while condoning the delay the Courts must be cautious and only on genuine reasons the Courts are empowered to condone the delay. The power of discretion to condone the delay is to be exercised judiciously and by recording reasons. The reasons furnished for condonation of delay must be candid and convincing. The condonation of delay cannot be claimed as a matter of right and only on genuine reasons the delay is to be condoned and not otherwise. In the event of condoning the huge delay in a routine manner the Courts are not only diluting the law of limitation but unnecessarily encouraging this kind of lapses. Therefore reasons which are all acceptable alone must be a ground for condonation of delay and flimsy false and casual reasons cannot be taken for the purpose of condoning the huge delay. This Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has not set out any acceptable ground for the purpose of condoning the delay of 263 days - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. Defective cause title due to the death of a respondent.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal

The appellant sought to condone a delay of 263 days in filing an appeal against the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 74 of 2013. The appellant contended that the delay occurred because the counsel lost the certified copies of the case papers and could not trace them despite efforts. The papers were only found in April 2017, after which the appeal was filed. The court found this explanation flimsy and indicative of a casual attitude. The court emphasized that parties intending to appeal must be vigilant, as the law of limitation is substantive and appeals must be filed within the prescribed time limit. The court underscored that condonation of delay is an exception, not a rule, and should only be granted for genuine reasons. The reasons provided must be candid and convincing. The court referred to several precedents, stressing that the discretionary power to condone delay must be exercised judiciously and not in a routine manner. The court cited judgments that highlighted the importance of a liberal yet reasonable approach, ensuring that the delay was not due to gross negligence or deliberate inaction.

Issue 2: Defective Cause Title Due to the Death of a Respondent

The court noted that the appeal was filed on 24.04.2017, but the second respondent had died on 31.07.2016. This resulted in a defective cause title. The appellant failed to amend the cause title even at the time of filing the appeal and had not taken any steps to rectify it. The court found this lack of diligence unacceptable and further reason to dismiss the petition for condonation of delay.

Conclusion:

Given the lack of acceptable grounds for the delay and the defective cause title, the court dismissed the civil miscellaneous petition and rejected A.S.SR. No. 34779 of 2017. The court reiterated that the principles of condonation of delay must be strictly adhered to, ensuring that justice is not compromised by casual or negligent actions.