9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 1394X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... med for his or her absence. The meaning of the word sufficient is adequate or enough, inasmuch as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. Sufficient cause would also mean that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bonafide 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 onus is on applicant to 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 bonafide or was merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose. It is settled law that no Court could be justified in condoning the delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by the Court and if there is no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the Court on time condoning the delay without any justification, it amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and tantamounts to showi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here will be no finality. The very purpose of the legislation will be defeated. The allottee will not be able to utilise the land for fear of being divested in the event of deaths and births in the family of the landowners. Deaths and births are events which are bound to occur. Therefore, it is reasonable to read a time-limit in sub-section (5) of Section 11. The concept of reasonable time in the given facts would be most appropriate. An application must be moved within a reasonable time. The facts of the present case demonstrate that redetermination under sub-section (5) of Section 11 almost 5 years after the death of Kartar Kaur and more than 6 years after the order of the Collector declaring the land as surplus had become final, has resulted in grave injustice besides defeating the object of the legislation which was envisaged as a socially beneficial piece of legislation. Thus we hold that the application for redetermination filed by Daya Singh under sub-section (5) of Section 11 of the Act on 21-6- 1985 was liable to be dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay and the Collector was wrong in reopening the issue declaring the land as not surplus in the hands of Daya Singh and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... given to technicalities. In such cases delay in filing and refiling cannot be viewed strictly, as compared to commercial claims under the Arbitration and Concilliation Act, 1996 or the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. 21. In P. Radha Bai v. P. Ashok Kumar, (2019) 13 SCC 445, wherein this Court while interpreting Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, held that the right to object to an award itself is substantively bound with the limitation period prescribed therein and the same cannot merely a procedural prescription. In effect the Court held that a complete petition, has to be filed within the time prescribed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act and 'not thereafter'. The Court while coming to the aforesaid conclusion, reasoned as under : "36.1. First, the purpose of the Arbitration Act was to provide for a speedy dispute resolution process. The Statement of Objects and Reasons reveal that the legislative intent of enacting the Arbitration Act was to provide parties with an efficient alternative dispute resolution system which gives litigants an expedited resolution of disputes while reducing the burden on the courts. Article 34(3) reflects this intent when it defines the commencem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the strict approach taken in the impugned order is hyper-technical and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law." 58. Given the object sought to be achieved under both the Arbitration Act and the Commercial Courts Act, that is, the speedy resolution of disputes, the expression "sufficient cause" is not elastic enough to cover long delays beyond the period provided by the appeal provision itself. Besides, the expression "sufficient cause" is not itself a loose panacea for the ill of pressing negligent and stale claims. This Court, in Basawaraj v. Land Acquisition Officer, has held : "9. Sufficient cause is the cause for which the defendant could not be blamed for his absence. The meaning of the word "sufficient" is "adequate" or "enough", inasmuch as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. Therefore, the word "sufficient" embraces no more than that which provides a platitude, which when the act done suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in the facts and circumstances existing in a case, duly examined from the viewpoint of a reasonable standard of a cautious man. In this context, "sufficient cause" means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect to the same. The legal maxim dura lex sed lex which means "the law is hard but it is the law", stands attracted in such a situation. It has consistently been held that, "inconvenience is not" a decisive factor to be considered while interpreting a statute. 13. The statute of limitation is founded on public policy, its aim being to secure peace in the community, to suppress fraud and perjury, to quicken diligence and to prevent oppression. It seeks to bury all acts of the past which have not been agitated unexplainably and have from lapse of time become stale. According to Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. 28, p. 266 : "605. Policy of the Limitation Acts.-The courts 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." An unlimited limitation would lead to a sense of insecurity and uncertainty, and therefore, limitation prevents disturbance or deprivation of what may have been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Government is a party before us. 28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody, including the Government. 29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bona fide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... recorded the irony of the situation where no action is taken against the officers who sit on these files and do nothing. 5. Looking to the period of delay and the casual manner in which the application has been worded, the wastage of judicial time involved, we impose costs on the petitioner State of Rs 35,000 to be deposited with the Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee. The amount be deposited within four weeks. The amount be recovered from the officer(s) responsible for the delay in filing and sitting on the files and certificate of recovery of the said amount be also filed in this Court within the said period of time. We have put to Deputy Advocate General to caution that for any successive matters of this kind the costs will keep on going up. 62. Also, it must be remembered that merely because sufficient cause has been made out in the facts of a given case, there is no right in the appellant to have delay condoned. This was felicitously put in Ramlal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. as follows: 12. It is, however, necessary to emphasise that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve to decide by considering the application. In the application, it is stated that on 7th January 2023 the impugned order was passed and the certified copy was applied on 30th January 2023 and delivered on 1st February 2023. No explanation is given for this delay of about 23 days. In paragraph 5, it is simply stated "However, in spite of Applicant/Appellant's advocate best and sincere efforts, the scrutiny and other connected process could not be completed earlier, the appellant is apologetic for this delay. On merits, the appellant has got a very good case........ " It is also stated that the delay is not deliberate nor intentional. Beyond this, there is no explanation whatsoever to explain why the delay should be condoned. 5 In our view, this does not satisfy the requirement of "sufficient cause" being made. Moreover, it is an appeal filed under Section 37 of the Act and as held by the Apex Court, the object of speedy disposal will be defeated if this Court condones the delay routinely without being satisfied that a sufficient cause is shown. We are guided by the Apex Court's ruling that in an appeal of this nature, the condonation of delay may be by way of exception and not by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
