Deepa Ram Jat vs U.O.I.

Veerender Singh Siradhana, J.—The matter comes up on an application No. 705/2013, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for condonation of delay in institution of the review application, which is time barred and has been filed after a delay of 2327 days.

In the application seeking condonation of delay, the reason detailed out, for delay, is that the petitioner did not know about the order under review and learned about the fact of the decision on his writ application when he contacted his counsel on 11th September, 2013.

It is further reflected from the contents of the application that the then counsel, had sent a copy of the judgment on the petitioner''s address. However, the copy of the judgment was not served on the petitioner, and therefore, the petitioner obtained another copy of the order dated 24th April, 2007, and filed the annexed review application on 8th October, 2013. Therefore, the review application is within the period of limitation, from the date of knowledge which according to the petitioner is 11th September, 2013. Hence, the delay deserves to be condoned.

Per contra, Mr. Ajay Shukla appearing on behalf of the respondent-Union of India, emphasized that there is neither any reason nor any ground pleaded in the application for abnormal, inordinate and explained delay of 2327 days.

According to the learned counsel, the writ application was decided on 24th April, 2007, and the then counsel, had also sent a copy of the judgment to the petitioner; as detailed out in the application itself; but no remedy was availed for six long years.

Referring to ground ''C'' of the review application, the learned counsel further submitted that the reference made to the provisions of Armed Forces Tribunal established under the Armed Forces Tribunals Act, 2007, has no relevance with the delay for the matter was adjudicated upon by this Court on 24th April, 2007. If the petitioner was aggrieved of the judgment under review, appropriate remedy, available under the law, ought to have been availed of immediately.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and give my thoughtful consideration to the reasons detailed out in the memo of application seeking condonation of delay and the rival submissions made.

The writ application preferred on behalf of the petitioner was adjudicated upon by the judgment and order dated 24th April, 2007. It is not reflected from the application as to when the petitioner enquired about the status of the writ application. What can be gathered from the facts, as detailed out in the application, is that the petitioner contacted the counsel only on 11th September, 2013, whereupon he learned about the fact of dismissal of the writ application vide judgment and order dated 24th April, 2007.

The learned counsel for the petitioner who also inspected the record of the court file, could not furnish any satisfactory explanation either with reference of the delay of 2327 days or with reference to the fact that on the very next date i.e. 25th April, 2007, two copies of the judgment and order dated 24th April, 2007, under review, were obtained.

No explanation is also forthcoming from the affidavit of the then counsel as well as from the affidavit of the petitioner, seeking condonation of delay for not availing of the remedy in accordance with law, for a long unexplained and abnormal delay of 2327 days.

The fact that the writ application was finally adjudicated upon on 24th April, 2007, and no legal remedy was availed of until institution of the annexed review petition, after an inordinate and abnormal delay of 2327 days; is also not in dispute.

By now, it is well settled law that Courts should not adopt an injustice-oriented approach while declining an application for condonation of delay. Be that as it may, while considering the prayer of applicant for condonation of delay extending the benefit while exercising the discretion under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the distinction between ''delay'' and ''inordinate delay'' for sufficient and bonafide reasons, has to be drawn.

Sufficient cause for an inaction or negligence for not availing of the legal remedy is the condition precedent before the discretion for condonation of delay could be exercised by the Court. The Hon''ble Apex Court of the land time and again has held that where delay is not properly, convincingly and satisfactorily explained, the inordinate delay cannot be condoned on sympathetic grounds. In the case of State of Karnataka and Others Vs. S.M. Kotrayya and Others, (1996) 8 AD 5 : (1997) 1 LLJ 640 : (1996) 7 SCALE 179 : (1996) 6 SCC 267 : (1996) 5 SCR 426 Supp , the Hon''ble Supreme Court rejecting the application for condonation of delay held that a petition should not be considered, ignoring the delay and laches, on the ground that the petition was filed soon after the knowledge of relief extended by a Court in a similar case.

In view of the singular facts and circumstances of the instant case at hand, I am not inclined to entertain the application for condonation of delay in absence of any reason tenable in law to condone the inordinate and unexplained delay of 2327 days.

In the result, the application for condonation of delay is hereby dismissed, and consequently, the review application also stands closed.