TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 1019X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to have been filed by him against the judgment and decree dated 18.8.2006. Not only this, the application and affidavit filed by him are conspicuously silent about the name of the advocate to whom the papers were entrusted tor the purpose of preparing the grounds of appeal. The affidavit of the concerned advocate was also not filed. if there was any iota of truth in the Respondent's story that the certified copies of the documents were misplaced by the office of his counsel and the same were noticed by the counsel on 2.3.2010 while preparing arguments in A.S. No. 200/2001, the minimum which he was expected to do was to file an affidavit of the concerned advocate. Why he did not do so has not been explained by the Respondent. Notwithstanding this, the learned Single Judge assumed that the counsel to whom the Appellant is said to have handed over the documents was remiss in the performance of his duties and on that account, the same got tagged with another file resulting in the delay. In the present case, the statement made by the Respondent about misplacement of the documents by the office of the Advocate was vague to the core and the learned Single Judge committed grav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondent cannot be penalised for the same. 5. We have heard Learned Counsel for the parties. The Limitation Act, 1963 has not been enacted with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they approach the court for vindication of their rights without unreasonable delay. The idea underlying the concept of limitation is that every remedy should remain alive only till the expiry of the period fixed by the legislature. At the same time, the courts are empowered to condone the delay provided that sufficient cause is shown by the applicant for not availing the remedy within the prescribed period of limitation. 6. The expression sufficient cause used in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and other statutes is elastic enough to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which serves the ends of justice. No hard-and-fast rule has been or can be laid down for deciding the applications parties are not defeated only on the ground of delay. 7. In Collector, Land Acquisition v. Katiji, 1987 2 SCC 107 this Court made a departure from the earlier judgments in which strict interpretation was placed on the expression sufficient cause and obse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... demands that all litigants, including the State as a litigant. are accorded the same treatment and the law is administered in an even-handed manner. There is no warrant for according a step-motherly treatment when the 'State' is the applicant praying for condonation of delay. In fact experience shows that on account of an impersonal machinery (no one in charge of the matter is directly hit or hurt by the judgment sought to be subjected to appeal) and the inherited bureaucratic methodology imbued with the note-making, file-pushing, and passing-on-the-buck ethos, delay on its part is less difficult to understand though more difficult to approve. In any event, the State which represents the collective cause of the community, does not deserve a litigant-non-grata status. The courts therefore have to be informed with the spirit and philosophy of the provision in the course of the interpretation of the expression 'sufficient cause'. So also the same approach has to be evidenced in its application to matters at hand with the end in view to do even-handed justice on merits in preference to the approach which scuttles a decision on merits. 8. In N. Balakrishnan v. M. Kris ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xed period of time. 9. In P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala, 1997 7 SCC 556 this Court reversed the order passed by the High Court for condonation of 565 days delay in filing of an appeal by the State against the decree passed by the Subordinate Court and observed: Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes and the courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. 10. In Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai, 2012 5 SCC 157 this Court referred to some of the judicial precedents and observed: What needs to be emphasised is that even though a liberal and justiceoriented approach is required to be adopted in the exercise of power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and other similar statutes, the courts can neither become oblivious of the fact that the successful litigant has acquired certain rights on the basis of the judgment under challenge and a lot of time is consumed at various stages of litigation apart from the cost. What colour the expression sufficient cause would get in the factual matrix of a given case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aced out inspite of their best efforts. On 2.3.2010, while my Counsel for preparing for arguments in A.S. No. 200/2001, he noticed that the certified copies of the documents were inadvertently tagged to it. On 3.3.2010, my Counsel prepared the draft appeal grounds and the delay petition and informed me to sign on the same. Thus, the same could not be filed till 5.3.2010. Due to the above mentioned reasons, I could not file the same for all these days for all these days. Hence, the delay of 1236 days in filing this appeal, which is neither intentional nor wanton, but it was beyond my control. If the delay is not condoned. I shall suffer grave and irreparable loss, which cannot be compensated. 13. A careful reading of the above extracted averments makes it clear that even though the Respondent was very much conscious of the fact that the appeal filed by him against order dated 20.2.2008 passed by the trial Court had been dismissed by the High Court on 11.12.2008 and he had obtained certified copies of the documents, which are said to have handed over to the counsel on 10.1.2009, he did not make any effort to contact the concerned advocate till the first week of March, 2010 to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
