Miss. Minabai D/O Lakha Kamble v. Tirthraj S/O Lakha Kamble And Others

2024:BHC-NAG:11510

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION (CAO) NO.624 OF 2024 IN CIVIL APPLICATION (CAS) NO.116 OF 2023 IN SECOND APPEAL ST. NO.20680 OF 2022 Miss. Minabai D/o Lakha Kamble .Vs. Tirthraj S/o Lakha Kamble and others Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order Smt S.G. Barbate, Advocate for appellant/applicant. Mrs. Mukta Ranade, Advocate for respondent Nos.5 and 7. CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.

DATED : 14/10/2024 1.

This is an application for condonation of delay of 1450 days caused for filing application for bringing legal representatives of respondent No.6 on record. 2.

Heard learned advocates for both sides.

3.

Perused the application.

4.

The learned advocate for the applicant pointed out that the applicant is blind, she is poor and having no knowledge of law. Delay is not deliberately caused. It is lastly submitted to allow the application by condoning the delay.

5.

The learned advocate for the respondent strongly opposed the application and submitted that, delay is not deliberately caused and it is lastly prayed to reject the application.

Considering grounds stated in the application and fact that, the applicant is blind, the delay is not deliberately caused. The civil rights of the parties are decided on merit.

In view of the judgment in the case of Sheo Raj Singh (Deceased) through legal representatives and others ..vs.. Union of India and another, reported in (2023) 10 SCC 531 as followed :

"Held, expression "sufficient cause" is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice - Expression "sufficient cause" should, therefore, be considered with pragmatism in justice-oriented approach rather than the technical detection of sufficient cause for explaining every day's delay."

8.

Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag and another ..vs.. Mst. Katiji and others, reported in AIR 1987 SC 1353 as followed :

"3...

1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.

2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.

3. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner.

4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a nondeliberate delay.

5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk.

6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.

Making a justice-oriented approach from this perspective, there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay in the institution of the appeal. The fact that it was the 'State' which was seeking condonation and not a private party was altogether irrelevant. The doctrine of equality before law demands that all litigants, including the State as a litigant, are accorded the same treatment and the law is administered in an even handed manner. There is no warrant for according a step motherly treatment when the 'State' is the applicant praying for condonation of delay.

In fact experience shows that on account of an impersonal machinery (no one in charge of the matter is directly hit or hurt by the judgment sought to be subjected to appeal) and the inherited bureaucratic methodology imbued with the note-making, file pushing, and passing-on-the-buck ethos, delay on its part is less difficult to understand though more difficult to approve. In any event, the State which represents the collective cause of the community, does not deserve a litigant non grata status. The Courts therefore have to be informed with the spirit and philosophy of the provision in the course of the interpretation of the expression "sufficient cause".

So also the same approach has to be evidenced in its application to matters at hand with the end in view to do even-handed justice on merits in preference to the approach which scuttles a decision on merits."

9.

Considering fact that, the applicant is blind and poor, the application deserves to be allowed in the interest of justice. The application is allowed. Delay of 1450 days caused for filing application for bringing legal representatives of respondent No.6 on record is condoned. 10.

The application is disposed.

CIVIL APPLICATION (CAO) NO.623 OF 2024 1.

This is an application for setting aside abatement.

2.

Heard learned advocates for both sides.

3.

Perused the application.

4.

The learned advocate for the respondent strongly opposed the application.

5.

The applicant is blind and poor. Delay is not deliberately caused therefore, the application deserves to be allowed in the interest of justice.

The application is allowed and abatement order is set aside.

Application is disposed.

CIVIL APPLICATION (CAO) NO.625 OF 2024 1.

This is an application for permission to bring the legal representatives of respondent No.6 on record. 2.

Heard learned advocates for both sides.

3.

Perused the application.

4.

The learned advocate for the respondent strongly objected the application.

5.

Considering fact that, the applicant is blind and poor therefore, the application deserves to be allowed in the interest of justice. The application is allowed.

Amendment be carried out within a week, if the amendment is not carried out within a week, the application shall deem to be rejected without further order. The application is disposed.

(SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.)