9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 1266X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting development of the subject land either himself or through some developer. He has submitted that due to such financial crises, delay has occurred. 2.1 It is also contended that refusing to condone the delay will result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. It is also contended that if the delay is condoned, the respondent will not be affected and justice will be done to both the parties on merits. It is also contended that there has never been any intention on his part to flout any legal provisions or legal formalities and despite the best efforts on his part, delay has been caused only because of the circumstances beyond control. While reciting the decision of the Apex Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, reported in AIR 1998 SC 3222 and State of Haryana v. Chandramani and Ors, reported in 1996 3 SCC 132. It is prayed by the applicant to condone the delay of 399 days occurred in preferring the Appeal from Order. 3. The respondent No.1 has resisted the application and has submitted that delay is of about more than 1 year and the reason advanced for seeking condonation of inordinate delay of having financia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Heard Mr. Jaimin Gandhi, learned advocate for the applicant, Mr. Ketan Dave, learned advocate for respondent No.1 and Mr. Sanjay Udhwani, learned advocate for the respondent Nos. 2 , and 4. The learned advocate for the respondent No.1 has submitted written submissions along with citations, which are taken on record. The respondent No.2 to 4 has also placed written submissions along with various decisions, which are taken on record, wherein the stand is taken that there is no sufficient explanation of delay and it needs to be dismissed. 5. Mr. Jaimin Gandhi, learned advocate for the applicant has vehemently submitted the facts which are narrated hereinabove and stated in the application itself. He has submitted the affidavit-in-rejoinder wherein he has submitted Statement of Bank Account as well as loan sanctioned letter from the private institution and other documents to support his version that there was financial crisis at his end and, therefore, the delay has occurred. In the written submissions also the same facts are narrated along with the extract of the decisions on which he has placed reliance. He has relied upon the following decisions: (1) Limbard Pravinsinh Ratansinh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and is taken that there is no sufficient explanation of delay and it needs to be dismissed. The respondent Nos. 2 to 4 has relied upon the following decision: 1. Mehtab Khan and others v. Khushnuma Ibrahim Khan and others, reported in (2013) 9 SCC 221; 8. In case of N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (Supra), regarding the delay the Court has observed as under: "It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the Court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases delay of very long range can be condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory". 8.1 In Para-10 thereof it is observed that: "The primary function of a Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice. Time limit fixed for approaching the Court in different situations is not because on the expiry of such time a bad cause would transform into a good cause". ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsideration. The decision based upon the merits of the original case is concerned, has no relevance at this stage because this Court is not dealing with the merits of the case in detail at this stage. Merits needs only to be looked into with a view to see as to whether any legal right is available to the applicant herein or not. Therefore, the decisions relied upon by both the sides as to legality or otherwise of the impugned order of injunction is concerned, has no relevance at this stage. Further, reliance placed by learned advocates for both the sides on the ground of sufficient cause in condonation of delay, are the same. In all the decisions, pertaining to the view to be taken in application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay are principally on the same principle, therefore, any stand of referring individually thereof, the crux of the principle relating to condonation of delay, as is brought out from those decisions, can be summarised as under: It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the Court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the plaintiff himself. 14. As the impugned order has been passed against the applicant herein who wants to prefer Appeal from Order, has definitely a legal right to challenge the order of the trial Court by way of filing Appeal from Order. At this stage only the point needs to be considered as to whether the delay occurred in preferring the said Appeal from Order is well explained or not. Now as the legal settled proposition which has been set-out here-in-above, considering the prevalent economy condition of the parties as well as even of the Country, the financial crisis can be considered to be one of the grounds for condonation of delay. The pivotal point of consideration would be whether the parties concerned has taken dilatory tactics in proceeding with the matter for initiated any proceedings or whether there is a malafide on his part or not. If there is a malafide attributed and established against the party concerned, then definitely even shortest delay cannot be condoned. It cannot be presumed that a person against whom an interim injunction is operating, would adopt dilatory tactics except in case of compelled circumstances or circumstances out of his control, he may no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
