9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 670X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ARNA V.S. ORDER C.M.Appl.Nos.409 & 410 of 2015 The petitioners seek to condone the delay of 288 days in filing review petitions challenging the common judgment in R.S.A.Nos.646 & 1038 of 2009 in these applications. The review petitioners are represented by their power of attorney holder. On 16.7.2014, by way of a common judgment this Court dismissed R.S.A.Nos.646 & 1038 of 2009. 2. The review petitioners pleaded the following:- The review petitioners/appellants filed an application for certified copy of the judgment on 16.7.2014 itself. The certified copy was issued on 25.7.2014. Thereafter, the Registry required the appellants to appellants surrendered the certified copy of the judgment. They obtained the judgment only after three ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... delay. 5. It is apposite to extract Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which reads thus:- "5. Extension of prescribed period in certain cases.-Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period. Explanation.-The fact that the appellant or the applicant was missed by any order, practice or judgment of the High Court in ascertaining or computing the prescribed period may be sufficient cause within the meaning of this section." The express ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rts have expressed at least three differing reasons supporting the existence of statutes of limitations namely, (1) that long dormant claims have more of cruelty than justice in them, (2) that a defendant might have lost the evidence to disprove a stale claim, and (3) that persons with good causes of actions should pursue them with reasonable diligence." 8. 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. SBI Staff Assn. [(2005) 7 SCC 510], Rajender Singh v. Santa Sin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st satisfy the court that he was prevented by any "sufficient cause" from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the Court should not allow the application for condonation of delay. The Court has to examine whether the mistake is bona fide or was merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose, the Supreme Court added. 12. In Basawaraj, the Supreme Court summarised the law on the issue in the following way:- "15. The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the "sufficient cause" which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... turbed. The other 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. As has been observed by the Madras High Court in Krishna v. Chathappan [(1890) ILR 13 Mad 269] "Section 5 gives the court a discretion which in respect of jurisdiction is to be exercised in the way in which judicial power and discretion ought to be exercised upon principles which are well understood; the words 'sufficient cause' receiving a liberal construction so as to advance substantial j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... condonation of delay has to be dismissed on that ground alone. However, if sufficient cause is shown, then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. In such circumstances, the Court considers all relevant facts especially diligence of the parties or its bona fides. However, the scope of enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant. The Court is not expected to enquire into why the party was sitting idle by all the time available to it. (Vide: Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. [(1962) 2 SCR 762 : AIR 1962 SC 361]). 16. I shall consider the facts of the present case o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
