Sunder Singh (Deceased) Through Lrs vs State Of H.P

Satyen Vaidya, J

By way of instant petition, petitioner has challenged order dated 30.11.2022 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. in CMA No. 233 of 2021, whereby the application of the respondent under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been allowed.

The Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Sarkaghat, District Mandi had passed a decree dated 3.5.2018 in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent. The appeal against the aforesaid decree was not preferred by the respondent within time prescribed by law of limitation and the same was filed after a delay of 1030 days in the Court of learned District Judge, Mandi, which was assigned for disposal to learned Additional District Judge, Sarkaghat, District Mandi.

The petition was accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay. It was averred that the certified copy of decree passed by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Sarkaghat was received by the respondent on 5.6.2018. The matter was examined by the department and it was opined to assail the decree in appeal. It was also averred that the delay in filing the appeal has occurred on account of reasons, firstly that the department was engaged in election duties for parliamentary election and secondly, onset of Covid-19 Pandemic had caused the delay.

The application was opposed by the petitioner. It was submitted that the plea raised by the respondent was vague. As per petitioner, no cause much less sufficient cause for condonation of delay had been explained in the application.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully.

Learned Additional District Judge has allowed the application of respondent filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act by holding that the cause shown by the respondent was reasonable and delay in filing the appeal was not intentional.

The finding so recorded by the learned Additional District Judge, Sarkaghat is not only cryptic but perverse for the reason firstly, that the same has been returned without recording any reason and secondly, the material on record did not warrant the same.

There were only vague averments in the application that officials of the respondent were held up due to the election duties and thereafter, they were prevented from filing the appeal due to Covid-19 Pandemic. The averments made in the application were bereft of better particulars. No date or period was mentioned during which the parliamentary election had taken place.

Admittedly, the respondent had received certified copy of decree passed by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade on 5.6.2018. The Covid Pandemic had become an impediment in regular course of life in March, 2010. By any stretch of imagination the detention of officials of the respondent for the purpose of election duties cannot be for more than two months. Though, the entire department could not be presumed to have been busy for conduct of election, however, at the best, the respondent can be granted benefit of two months on that count.

Thus, there was no explanation at all as to why the respondent could not file the appeal for the remaining period between 5.6.2018 till the onset of Covid Pandemic in March, 2020

The prayer for condonation of delay in filing the appeal can be allowed only if the Court is satisfied that the delay has been caused by sufficient reasons and such reasons are bona-fide. The onus to establish sufficient reasons and bona-fidies are always on the applicant. The rigors of Limitation Act apply equally to all including the government. The sufficiency of a cause for condonation of delay can be assessed in view of the facts and circumstances of each particular case.

As noticed above, what to talk of sufficient cause, the applicant has not been able to assign any reason whosoever for substantial period of delay in filing the appeal. Though, some leverage is permissible in the case of government but that cannot be construed as an absolute license to flout the law at whims.

In Maniben Devraj Shah vs. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai, 2012 (5) SCC 157, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

“23. What needs to be emphasised is that even though a liberal and justice oriented approach is required to be adopted in the exercise of power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and other similar statutes, the Courts can neither become oblivious of the fact that the successful litigant has acquired certain rights on the basis of the judgment under challenge and a lot of time is consumed at various stages of litigation apart from the cost.

What colour the expression ‘sufficient cause’ would get in the factual matrix of a given case would largely depend on bona fide nature of the explanation. If the Court finds that there has been no negligence on the part of the applicant and the cause shown for the delay does not lack bona fides, then it may condone the delay. If, on the other hand, the explanation given by the applicant is found to be concocted or he is thoroughly negligent in prosecuting his cause, then it would be a legitimate exercise of discretion not to condone the delay.”

In Basawaraj & another vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, 2013 (14) SCC 81, the law has been expounded as under:-

“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. 24, p. 181:

"330. Policy of 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 acquired in equity and justice by long enjoyment or what may have been lost by a party's own inaction, negligence' or laches.”

Similarly, repatriation of law can be found in the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Brahampal @ Sammay & another vs. National Insurance company, 2021 (6) SCC 512, as under:-

“18. The Court in the abovementioned cases, highlighted upon the importance introducing the concept of “reasonableness” while giving the clause “sufficient cause” a liberal interpretation. In furtherance of the same, this Court has cautioned regarding the necessity of distinguishing cases where delay is of few days, as against the cases where the delay is inordinate as it might accrue to the prejudice of the rights of the other party. In such cases, where there exists inordinate delay and the same is attributable to the party’s inaction and negligence, the Courts have to take a strict approach so as to protect the substantial rights of the parties.

Undoubtedly, the statute has granted the Courts with discretionary powers to condone the delay, however at the same time it also places an obligation upon the party to justify that he was prevented from abiding by the same due to the existence of “sufficient cause”. Although there exists no strait jacket formula for the Courts to condone delay, but the Courts must not only take into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of case but also the conduct of the parties. The concept of reasonableness dictates that, the Courts even while taking a liberal approach must weigh in the rights and obligations of both the parties. When a right has accrued in favour of one party due to gross negligence and lackadaisical attitude of the other, this Court shall refrain from exercising the aforesaid discretionary relief.”

Having considered the above discussed facts at the touchstone of the legal position, as notice above, I have no hesitation to hold that the respondent had failed to show any reasonable and bonafide cause for condoning a huge delay of 1030 days that had occurred in filing the appeal.

In result, the petition is allowed. The order dated 30.11.2022 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. in CMA No. 233 of 2021 is set aside and the application of the respondent filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is ordered to be dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.