Aneesh vs Vs Divisional Manager

C.S.Dias, J

C.M.A No.1/2020

This is an application filed to condone the delay of 631 days in filing the appeal.

The petitioner has averred in the affidavit in support of the application that, he was a minor at the time of the accident. It was only after he attained

majority, he contacted his counsel and enquired regarding the scope of filing an appeal before this Court. The counsel had informed him that it was a

fit case to file an appeal . However, he was unable to move freely without the help of a bystander. In the meantime, the COVID-19 pandemic hit the

country and the national lock down was declared. In the said circumstances, the petitioner was disabled from filing the appeal within the statutory time

period.

The application is vehemently opposed by the respondent, who has filed a counter affidavit. It is contended that there is no cogent or sufficient

reasons stated in the affidavit to condone the delay. Hence, the application is only liable to be dismissed.

The law with respect to condonation of delay is well settled in a plethora of decision. In Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr v. Katiji &

Ors [(1987) 2 SCC 107], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the expression sufficient cause is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply

the law in a meaningful manner which sub-serves the ends of justice and that a liberal approach has to be adopted while dealing with applications for

condonation of delay.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and Another [ (2010) 5 SCC

459] that Court has justifiably advocated adoption of liberal approach in condoning the delay of short duration and a stricter approach where the delay

is inordinate.

Again the very same principles have been reiterated in Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and Others

[(2013) 12 SCC 649] and Post Master General and Others v. Living Media India Limited and Another [(2012) 3 SCC 563].

Therefore, it is trite law that a case has to be decided on merits, after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, rather than dismissing the

case on technicalities or default.

It is admitted by the petitioner that the award was passed on 18.8.2018 and that the certified copy was only obtained by his counsel on 13.8.2020.

Therefore, the contention that the COVID-19 pandemic prevented the petitioner from filing the appeal cannot be accepted. Although the reasons

stated in the affidavit are not all that convincing and satisfactory, I am of the considered opinion that a lenient view can be taken in the matter, but on

condition that the petitioner pays reasonable costs, which would tide over the hardship and prejudice caused to the respondent.

In the result, I allow the application on the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall deposit/pay an amount of Rs.1000/- as costs to the respondent/the learned counsel appearing for the respondent in the application before this

Court, within a period of two weeks from today, and file a memo to the effect.

(ii) Only if the memo is filed within the prescribed time, the application will stand allowed and the delay will stand condoned, failing which the application and appeal

will stand dismissed.

(iii) If ultimately the appeal is allowed in favour of the petitioner, he would be dis-entitled for interest for the period of 631 days.

Post the appeal after two weeks.