TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 670X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... both the parties. When a right has accrued in favour of one party due to gross negligence of the other, the Court shall refrain from exercising the discretionary relief. It is a settled legal proposition that law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the Statute mandates so. The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. In Basawaraj [ 2013 (12) TMI 274 - SUPREME COURT ], the Supreme Court held that sufficient cause means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part in view of the facts and circumstances of a case or it cannot be alleged that the party has not acted diligently or remained inactive. The Supreme Court further held that the applicant must 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. The review petitions have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation stating the following:- The Regular Second Appeals and the Review Petitions have been filed at the instance of the Power of Attorney Holder, who is using the review petitioners as a tool against the respondents. The reason stated for the delay is the difficulties caused to the power of attorney holder and not to the petitioners/review petitioners. The delay has not been properly explained. 4. The questions that arise for consideration are (i) whether the petitioners have established sufficient cause for not preferring the review petitions within the statutory period; (ii) if sufficient cause is shown, have the petitioners established the ground for the exercise of the discretion in condoning the 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 applicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... own inaction, negligence or laches. (See Popat and Kotecha Property v. SBI Staff Assn. [(2005) 7 SCC 510], Rajender Singh v. Santa Singh [(1973) 2 SCC 705] : AIR 1973 SC 2537] and Pundlik Jalam Patil v. Jalgaon Medium Project [(2008) 17 SCC 448 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 907]). (Vide: Basawaraj and Another v. Special Land Acquisition Officcer [(2013) 14 SCC 81]). 9. In P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka [(2002) 4 SCC 578 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 830], the Supreme Court held that judicially engrafting principles of limitation amounts to legislating and would fly in the face of law laid down by the Constitution Bench in Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S.Nayak [(1992) 1 SCC 225]. 10. The expression sufficient cause should be given a liberal interpretation to ensure that substantial justice is done, but only so long as negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides cannot be imputed to the party concerned, whether or not sufficient cause has been furnished, can be decided on the facts of a particular case and no straitjacket formula is possible. (Vide: Madanlal v. Shyamlal [(2002) 1 SCC 535 : AIR 2002 SC 100], Ram Nath Sao v. Gobardhan Sao [(2002) 3 SCC 195 : AIR 2002 SC 1201]) and Basawaraj an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... parties. In other words, when the period of limitation prescribed has expired the decreeholder has obtained a benefit under the law of limitation to treat the decree as beyond challenge, and this legal right which has accrued to the decree-holder by lapse of time should not be light-heartedly disturbed. 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 justice when no negligence nor inaction nor want of bona fide is imputable to the appellant. 14. The laws of limitation are founded on public policy. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
