TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 274X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 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 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding upon the quality and geographical situation of the land. For phut kharab land, assessment was made at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per acre. D. Aggrieved, the appellants filed appeals under Section 54 of the Act before the High Court on 16.8.2007 with applications for condonation of delay. The applications for condonation of delay stood rejected as the High Court did not find any sufficient cause to condone the delay. Hence, these appeals. 3. Shri Basava Prabhu S. Patil, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, has submitted that the High Court committed an error in not condoning the delay as there was sufficient cause for not approaching the High Court within time. One of the appellants was suffering from ailments ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the applications for condonation of delay for not approaching the court in time. Thus, the appeals lack merit and are liable to be dismissed. 5. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Admittedly, there was a delay of 5-1/2 years in filing the said appeals under Section 54 of the Act before the High Court. The only explanation offered for approaching the court at such a belated stage has been that one of the appellants had taken ill. 7. Shri Patil, learned senior counsel, has taken us through a large number of judgments of the High Court wherein delay had been condoned without considering the most relevant factor i.e. sufficient cause only on the condition that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g decision. Even otherwise, Article 14 cannot be stretched too far for otherwise it would make functioning of administration impossible. (Vide: Chandigarh Administration Anr. v. Jagjit Singh Anr., AIR 1995 SC 705, M/s. Anand Button Ltd. v. State of Haryana Ors., AIR 2005 SC 565; K.K. Bhalla v. State of M.P. Ors., AIR 2006 SC 898; and Fuljit Kaur v. State of Punjab, AIR 2010 SC 1937). 9. Sufficient cause is the cause for which defendant could not be blamed for his absence. The meaning of the word "sufficient" is "adequate" or "enough", inasmuch as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. Therefore, the word "sufficient" embraces no more than that which provides a platitude, which when the act done suffices to accomplish the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, if any difference exists it can only be that the requirement of good cause is complied with on a lesser degree of proof that that of sufficient cause . 11. The expression sufficient cause should be given a liberal interpretation to ensure that substantial justice is done, but only so long as negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides cannot be imputed to the party concerned, whether or not sufficient cause has been furnished, can be decided on the facts of a particular case and no straitjacket formula is possible. (Vide: Madanlal v. Shyamlal, AIR 2002 SC 100; and Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu Ors. v. Gobardhan Sao Ors., AIR 2002 SC 1201.) 12. It is a settled legal proposition that law of limitation may harshly affect a particu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asonable diligence". An unlimited limitation would lead to a sense of insecurity and uncertainty, and therefore, limitation prevents disturbance or deprivation of what may have been acquired in equity and justice by long enjoyment or what may have been lost by a party's own inaction, negligence' or laches. (See: Popat and Kotecha Property v. State Bank of India Staff Assn. (2005) 7 SCC 510; Rajendar Singh Ors. v. Santa Singh Ors., AIR 1973 SC 2537; and Pundlik Jalam Patil v. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project, (2008) 17 SCC 448). 14. In P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2002 SC 1856, this Court held that judicially engrafting principles of limitation amounts to legislating and would fly in the face of law laid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
