TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 1265X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so as to advance the substantial justice and generally, delay in preferring the appeals are required to be condoned in the interest of justice - Thus, the consideration which cannot be ignored is that if sufficient cause for excusing delay is shown, discretion is given to the Court to condone delay and admit the appeal. This discretion has been deliberately conferred on the Court in order that judicial power and discretion in that behalf should be exercised to advance substantial justice. Another ground on which the learned first appellate Judge has rejected the application for condonation of delay is nonjoinder of necessary parties viz. original plaintiff Nos. 6 and 7, who happen to be the father and mother of original plaintiff namely deceased Sanjaybhai Popatbhai Mer - when the respondents have chosen not to resist the said application, with a view to fend off multiplicity of proceedings, such a curable technicality ought to have been avoided. Petition allowed. - R/Special Civil Application No. 16984 of 2021 - - - Dated:- 4-2-2022 - A.C. Joshi, J. Mr. Dipak R. Dave (1232) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1, 2. Notice Served for the Respondent(s) No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in part in favour of the respondents herein, against which, the present petitioner desires to file an appeal, however, since there was delay of 132 days, the petitioners preferred Misc. Civil Application No. 53 of 2019 for condonation of delay. The said application came to be rejected by the impugned order dated 31.08.2021, being aggrieved of which, the petitioners are before this Court. 5.1 It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner being a government company, approval and opinion at different levels are required to be taken and in such a course, the delay has occurred. Accordingly, if the chronology of events is seen, it can be summarized as under: i) on 01.05.2019, the learned trial Court passed the decree; ii) on 02.05.2019, certified copy was applied for; iii) on 14.05.2019, certified copy was received and on same day, learned advocate forwarded the same to the Deputy Executive Engineer ; iv) on 20.05.2019, Deputy Executive Engineer forwarded proposal along with necessary papers to the office of Executive Engineer; v) on 23.05.2019, Executive Engineer forwarded the case papers to the Superintending Engineer; vi) on 30.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cient cause appears to have been shown by the petitioner for delay; vi) as per the catena of decisions of the Apex Court, sufficient cause in Section 5 of the Limitation Act must receive a liberal construction so as to advance the substantial justice and generally, delay in preferring the appeals are required to be condoned in the interest of justice. 5.5 The Apex Court, in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Ors. vs. Subrata Borah Chowlek and Ors. (12.11.2010 SC) : MANU/SC/1252/2010 has observed as under: 7. Having heard the Learned Counsel, we are of the opinion that in the instant case a sufficient cause had been made out for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and therefore, the High Court erred in declining to condone the same. It is true that even upon showing a sufficient cause, a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay as a matter of right, yet it is trite that in construing sufficient cause, the Courts generally follow a liberal approach particularly when no negligence, inaction or mala fides can be imputed to the party. (See: Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari and Ors. MANU/SC/0335/1968 : (1969) 1 SCR 1006; The State of West Bengal v. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... courts should not lose sight of the fact that by not taking steps within the time prescribed a valuable right has accrued to the other party which should not be lightly defeated by condoning delay in a routine-like manner. However, by taking a pedantic and hyper technical view of the matter the explanation furnished should not be rejected when stakes are high and/or arguable points of facts and law are involved in the case, causing enormous loss and irreparable injury to the party against whom the lies terminates, either by default or inaction and defeating valuable right of such a party to have the decision on merit. While considering the matter, courts have to strike a balance between resultant effect of the order it is going to pass upon the parties either way. 10. In State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ahmed Jaan MANU/SC/7946/2008 : (2008) 14 SCC 582, while observing that although no special indulgence can be shown to the Government which, in similar circumstances is not shown to an individual suitor, one cannot but take a practical view of the working of the Government without being unduly indulgent to the slow motion of its wheels, highlighted the following observations of this Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Court in order that judicial power and discretion in that behalf should be exercised to advance substantial justice. 5.7 Another ground on which the learned first appellate Judge has rejected the application for condonation of delay is nonjoinder of necessary parties viz. original plaintiff Nos. 6 and 7, who happen to be the father and mother of original plaintiff namely deceased Sanjaybhai Popatbhai Mer. It may not be out of place here to mention that the suit was filed against the petitioner electricity company for compensation on sad demise of Sanjaybhai Popatbhai Mer the original plaintiff, who had died due to electrocution. A perusal of the array of parties reveals that original suit was preferred through the legal heirs of the deceased Sanjaybhai Popatbhai Mer, including original plaintiff Nos. 6 and 7. Under the circumstances, when the respondents have chosen not to resist the said application, with a view to fend off multiplicity of proceedings, such a curable technicality ought to have been avoided. 5.8 Thus, in the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, this Court is of the opinion that the matter merits favourable consideration. 6. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
