TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 1424X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judiciously. In the case of P.K. Ramachandran [[ 1997 (9) TMI 598 - SUPREME COURT] ], while refusing to condone the delay of 565 days, it is observed that in the absence of reasonable, satisfactory or even appropriate explanation for seeking condonation of delay, the same is not to be condoned lightly. It is further observed that the 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. It is further observed that while exercising discretion for condoning the delay, the court has to exercise discretion judiciously. Considering the averments in the application for condonation of delay, it is opined that as such no explanation much less a sufficient or a satisfactory explanation had been offered by respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein appellants before the High Court for condonation of huge delay of 1011 days in preferring the Second Appeal. The High Court is not at all justified in exercising its discretion to condone such a huge delay. The High Court has not exercised the discretion judiciously. The reasoning given by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... own by the respondents herein appellants before the High Court, explaining the huge delay of 1011 days in preferring the Second Appeal. 3.2 It is further submitted that even while condoning the huge delay of 1011 days, the High Court has also not observed that sufficient cause has been shown explaining the delay of 1011 days in preferring the Second Appeal. 3.3 It is further submitted that even considering the averments in the application for condonation of delay, there is no explanation whatsoever explaining the delay for the period after 15.03.2017 till June, 2021 till the Second Appeal was preferred. 3.4 Making the above submissions and relying upon the decisions of this Court in the cases of Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd ., (1962) 2 SCR 762; P.K. Ramachandran Vs. State of Kerala and Anr ., (1997) 7 SCC 556 as well as the decision in the cases of Pundlik Jalam Patil Vs. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project , (2008) 17 SCC 448 and Basawaraj and Anr. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer., (2013) 14 SCC 81, it is prayed to allow the present appeal. 4. Shri Siddhartha Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sts for this delay. The contention of the respondent that valuable rights are accrued to her on account of inaction of the petitioners in failing to prefer the Second Appeal within time, cannot be a significant factor in the backdrop of the circumstances found in this case. In the result, this petition is allowed condoning the delay of 1011 days in filing the second appeal subject to payment of costs of Rs.2,000/ (Rupees Two thousand only) to the learned counsel for the respondent on or before 05.10.2021. Thus from the aforesaid, it can be seen that the High Court has not observed that any sufficient cause explaining the huge delay of 1011 days has been made out. 6.1 The High Court has observed that if the delay is condoned no prejudice will be caused to the appellant as the appeal would be heard on merits. The High Court has also observed that there is no wilful negligence on the part of the respondents herein nor it suffers from want of due diligence. However, from the averments in the application for condonation of delay, we are of the opinion that it was a case of a gross negligence and/or want of due diligence on the part of the respondents herein appellants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e nor inaction nor want of bona fide is imputable to the appellant. 7.2 In the case of P.K. Ramachandran (supra), while refusing to condone the delay of 565 days, it is observed that in the absence of reasonable, satisfactory or even appropriate explanation for seeking condonation of delay, the same is not to be condoned lightly. It is further observed that the 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. It is further observed that while exercising discretion for condoning the delay, the court has to exercise discretion judiciously. 7.3 In the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil (supra), it is observed as under: The laws of limitation are founded on public policy. Statutes of limitation are sometimes described as statutes of peace . An unlimited and perpetual threat of limitation creates insecurity and uncertainty; some kind of limitation is essential for public order. The principle is based on the maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium , that is, the interest of the State requires that there s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
