Madanpal vs Vlth Additional District Judge, Meerut and Others

G.P. Mathur, J.—Against the decree passed in Original Suit No. 513 of 1988 by Munsif City, Meerut, the petitioner preferred a time barred appeal along with an application u/s 5, Limitation Act, which was rejected by Vlth Additional District Judge on 21.5.1994. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing of the aforesaid order. As the parties have exchanged affidavits the writ petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage.

The impugned order shows that the suit was decided by the learned Munsif on 22.4.1993 and the appeal was preferred on 23.8.1993. The explanation offered by the petitioner in the application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act was that he was ill from 19.5.1993 to 31.8.1993 and was unable to move. Learned District Judge was of the opinion that Dr. R.S. Sharma, under whom the petitioner was getting treatment was not a specialist, and the fact that the petitioner did not get himself treated from a specialist showed that he was nor seriously ill for such a long period. Disbelieving the ground of illness taken by the petitioner in his affidavit which was filed in support of the application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, the same was rejected by the impugned order.

The facts mentioned in the impugned order show that after the judgment was delivered by the learned Munsif on 22.4.1993, the petitioner gave an application for obtaining certificate of the judgment and decree on 7.5.1993 and the same was prepared on 21.5.1993. A period of fifteen days was, thus, spent in the preparation of the certified copy of the judgment and decree. Since the judgment of the trial Court was pronounced on 22.4.1993 the limitation for filing the appeal after taking into consideration the period spent in preparation of the certified copy would expire on 6.6.1993, i.e. during summer vacation. The appeal could, therefore, be filed on the reopening day in July, 1993. The learned Additional District Judge has, therefore, erred in proceedings on the basis that the limitation for filing the appeal expired on 22.5.1993 and the petitioner had to explain the delay from the said date till 23.8.1993, i.e. for about three months. In his affidavit the petitioner said that he was suffering from Typhoid and cirrhosis of liver for which he was undergoing treatment from Dr. R.S. Sharma. The certificate issued by Dr. R.S. Sharma was also filed. The mere fact that the petitioner did not get himself treated from a specialist can be no ground for disbelieving the certificate issued by Dr. Sharma or the affidavit filed by the petitioner. It depends upon ones own thinking and financial conditions whether to consult a specialist or not. it is quite possible that the petitioner had confidence and faith in Dr. Sharma and therefore, he did not consult a specialist for his treatment. Therefore, the reason given by the learned Additional District Judge for discarding the ground given in support of the application u/s 5, Limitation Act does not appear to be justified.

It may be noticed that the current judicial thinking is that Section 5, Limitation Act, should receive a liberal interpretation. In Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Another Vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, , the Supreme Court has said that "every day''s delay must be explained" does not mean that pedentio approach should be made and the doctrine must be applied in a rational, common sense and pragmatic manner. Similarly in G. Ramegowda, Major and Ors Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore, , it has been held that the expression ''sufficient cause'' must receive liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice and generally delays in preferring appeals are required to be condoned in the interest of justice where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides is imputable to the party seeking condonation of delay. In my opinion, the learned District Judge has taken a too technical view of the matter and has wrongly rejected the ground of illness set up by the petitioner on hypothetical reasons that a specialist was not consulted. The impugned order deserves to be quashed.

In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 21.5.1994 passed by the Vlth Additional District Judge is quashed. The application u/s 5, Limitation Act filed by the petitioner is allowed. The appeal preferred by the petitioner shall be registered and will be decided in accordance with law. No cost.