Shri Yogesh Kisanlal Purohit And ORS v. Yesubbai Anant Bhoir And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1438 OF 2014 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER (ST) NO.27707 OF 2014 Shri Yogesh Kisanlal Purohit and Ors.
.. Applicants vs.
Yesubbai Anand Bhoir and Ors.
.. Respondents Mr.P.K.Dhakephalkar, Sr.Counsel i/b Mr.Amol Mhatre for the applicant Mr.M.S.Lagu for the respondent no.37 Mr.Rajesh Mudholkar for the respondent nos.30, 31 to 33
CORAM
: K.K.TATED, J.
DATED : 14/07/2015 PC:
Heard the learned counsel for the applicant.
Though other respondents are duly served, no one appeared on behalf of them when the matter was called out. This application is for condonation of 106 days delay in filing Appeal from Order.
The learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submits that as soon as the impugned order is passed by the Trial Court on 11.3.2014, on the same day they filed application for certified copy. Same was 1/4
delivered on 1.4.2014. He submits that applicants took some time to file the present Appeal from Order because they had to take decision jointly. In support of this contention, he relies on paragraph 39 of the Civil Application. He submits that in the interest of Justice, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to condone the delay in filing Appeal from Order. He submits that if delay is not condoned, irreparable loss and injury will be caused to the applicant.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent nos.30, 31 to 33 vehemently opposed the present Civil Application. He submits that applicant has not shown sufficient cause for condonation of more than 106 days delay in filing Appeal from Order. Hence, there is no substance in the present Appeal from Order and same be dismissed with costs Before deciding this application we have to see the law laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of N.Balkrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 held that the object of fixing the time limit is not meant to destroy the rights. The law of limitation fixes a lifespan for such legal remedy for the general welfare. Paragraph Nos.11, 12 and 13 of the said judgment read thus :
11. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. Law of limitation fixes a life-span for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and the wasted time would never revisit. During efflux of time newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a life span must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. Law of limitation 2/4
is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim Interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time.
12. A Court knows that refusal to condone delay would result in foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. This Court has held that the words "sufficient cause" Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari, 1969 SC 575 and State of West Bengal v. The Administrator, Howrah Municipality, AIR 1972 SC 749.
13. It must be remembered that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him. If the explanation does not smack of mala fides or it is not put forth as part of a dilatory strategy the court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. But when there is reasonable ground to think that the delay was occasioned by the party deliberately to gain time then the court should lean against acceptance of the explanation. While condoning delay the Court should not forget the opposite party altogether. It must be borne in mind that he is a loser and he too would have incurred quite a large litigation expenses.
It would be a salutary guideline that when courts condone the delay due to laches on the part of the applicant the court shall compensate the opposite party for his loss." Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Applicant, the reasons disclosed in paragraph 39 of the Civil Application and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of N.Balkrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy (Supra), I am satisfied that the Applicant has made out a case for allowing the present Civil Application. At the same time, applicant has to pay cost of Rs.
the respondent no.30, 31 to 33 jointly within 2 weeks from today. Hence, following order:
a) Delay of 106 days in filing Appeal from Order is condoned. b) Applicant to pay cost of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent no.30, 31 to 33 jointly or their Advocate within 2 weeks from today failing which Civil Application shall stand dismissed without referring back to the court. c) Civil application stands disposed off accordingly. (K.K.TATED, J.) 4/4