Ajit Singh vs Dalbir Singh

Iqbal Singh, J.—A suit for declaration filed by the appellant and two others was dismissed by the trial Court. Appeal was dismissed with costs by the lower appellate Court by judgment and decree dated 20.8.1997. Aggrieved there against, one of the plaintiffs has filed this second appeal, but after the expiry of period of limitation. Civil Misc. 3172C of 1998 has, therefore, been filed along with the appeal, for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

All that has been stated in the application is that the appellant had given his power of attorney to his brother Jaswant Singh who used to apprise him about the developments of the appeal. On the decision of the appeal, his brother tried to contact him, but he was way to Rajasthan for six weeks trip as he had been running a Taxi. His brother, therefore, lost interest in the litigation and did not even instruct anyone to apply for a certified copy of the judgment, nor did he personally apply for certified copy of the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court. It is further stated that the appellant derived knowledge about the decision of the appeal on 10.12.1997. Application for supply of certified copy of the judgment and decree was made on 13.12.1997 and the same was prepared on 17.12.1997 and was obtained on 2.1.1998. The certified copies were delivered to the appellant at Delhi on 10.1.1998 and the appeal was thereafter filed on 14.1.1998. In the meantime, a delay of 57 days occurred in filing the appeal which is not intentional and deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice.

The application was opposed by filing reply. It was stated that the stand taken by the appellant is all a cooked up story and the appellant and his attorney were negligent in performing their duty to apply for certified copy of the judgment and decree within the period of limitation. It was thus prayed that the application deserves to be dismissed.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The appellant is seeking condonation of delay of 57 days in filing the appeal primarily on the ground that his attorney could not convey the decision of the appeal to him as he was away on six weeks trip to Rajasthan. First of all, this in itself is not a reasonable ground for condoning the delay. A party who is really serious to get relief from the Court must adhere to the rules of law and must be vigilant enough to move the Court within the period prescribed by law. In any case, even if it be accepted that the appellant was away to Rajasthan, it has not at all been mentioned as to on which date the appellant left Delhi for Rajasthan and when he returned from there. It is also not shown whether on the date of decision of the appeal or on the next three/four days following the date of decision of the appeal, the appellant was available in Delhi or not. Even if he was away from his place of residence for such a long period, he must have been anxious to contact his attorney who was none else but his real brother. If his attorney had lost interest after he failed to contact the appellant as has been demonstrated in the application, it was the duty of the appellant himself to either contact his attorney immediately after his return from Rajasthan, or to himself contact the advocate or come to the Court to find out the outcome of the appeal as otherwise, he must at least be aware that appeal was at the final stage and was likely to be decided. As per appellant''s own showing, the certified copy, which admittedly, had been applied for after the period of limitation had expired long back, was prepared on 17.12.1997, the delivery of which was taken only on 2.1.1998 and there is no explanation at all for not collecting the copies immediately after its preparation. Omission on the part of the appellant to take any of such steps clearly goes to show that either he was least serious in pursuing his matter or was negligent or that the ground mentioned in the application is an after thought legend. A party cannot be given a latitude to approach the Court any time it so chooses.

Above apart, this is the general rule that a party who approaches the Court beyond the period prescribed in law must show that it was prevented by a sufficient cause in not coming to the Court. Strictly speaking, such party is required to explain even each day''s delay. The appellant having failed to show any sufficient cause is not entitled to the condonation of delay. Delay cannot be condoned even on equity also. In this respect the observations of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala, Judgment Today 1997(8) S.C. 189 : 1997(4) RCR (Civil) 242 (SC) deserve to be noticed, as under :

"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."

In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the appellant has not been able to show that he was prevented by a sufficient cause in filing the appeal within the time prescribed in law. The Civil Misc. is consequently dismissed. As a result, the appeal is also dismissed as time barred.