JUSTICE DESAI, D.A., JUSTICE BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH (CJ) in the case of Sandhya Rani Sarkar vs Sudha Rani Debi And Ors Reported in AIR 1978 SC 537, 1978 SCR (2) 839 It is undoubtedly true that in dealing with the question of condoning the delay under section 5, the party seeking relief has to satisfy the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within the prescribed time and this has always been understood to mean that the explanation has to cover the whole period of delay. However, it is not possible to lay down precisely as to what facts or matters would constitute "sufficient cause" under Section 5. But those words should be liberally construed so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence or any inaction or want of bona fides is imputable to a party i.e. the delay in filing an appeal should not have been for reasons which indicate the party's negligence in not taking necessary steps which he would have or should have taken. What would be such necessary steps ;will again depend upon the circumstances of a particular case.
Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji, reported at AIR 1987 SC 1353. Learned counsel for the applicants, after discussing the said decision, laid particular emphasis on the six factors recited in para 3 of the said decision. These six factors are as under :
"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 the 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 techinical 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 non-deliberate delay.
5. There is no presumption that delay is occassioned 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 legalise on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so."
Supreme Court in the case of Binod Bihari Singh v. Union of India, reported at AIR 1993 SC 1245 are relevant. The observations made in para 10 of the said decision are of far-reaching effect. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed that they were not inclined to hold that the delay in presenting the application (the substantive matter) deserves to be condoned on the facts and circumstances of the case. They further observed that in their view it is not at all a fit case where in the anxiety to render justice to a party so that _a just cause is not defeated, a pragmatic view should be taken by the Court in considering the sufficient cause for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act . The contention, that the ignoble plea of bar of limitation sought to be raised by the respondent should not be taken into consideration in order that the just claim of the appellant should not be defeated, was emphatically negatived. Their Lordships further went on to observe, merely by way of an indication, that it may not be desirable for a Government or a public authority to take shelter under the plea of bar of limitation to defeat a just claim of a citizen; but if a claim is barred by limitation and such plea is raised specifically, the Court cannot straightway dismiss the plea simply on the score that such a plea is ignoble. A bar of limitation may be considered even if such plea has not been specifically raised. The principles that the Limitation Act is a statute of repose and a bar to a cause of action in a Court of law which is otherwise lawful and valid, because of undesirable lapse of time as contained in the Limitation Act, has been laid down on well accepted principles of jurisprudence and public policy. Thus, these observations clearly have relevance on two aspects of the present matter. Firstly, that the bar of limitation creates a right in favour of the party which successfully sets up such a bar, and secondly that the extinguishment of the remedy which is otherwise available to a party under law, is enforced on the basis of well accepted principles of jurisprudence and public policy. This decision also establishes yet another principles viz. that where a just cause is to be weighed against shutting out the same on account of the bar of limitation, the latter must prevail. Even a just cause cannot prevail over the bar of limitation.
Supreme Court in the case ofState of Gujarat v. Sayed Mohd. Baquir El. Edroos, reported at AIR 1981 SC 1921. Court while considering the question of condonation of delay on merits, is barred from looking into the merits of the substantive matter, in the filing of which condonation is sought. ….. merits of the substantive matter had no relevance whatsoever when the Court is dealing with the application for condonation of delay.
Supreme Court in the case of Ram Bhawan Singh v. Jagdish, reported at Judgment Today (1990) 3 JT (SC) 704. In our opinion, this decision does not in any manner advance the cause of the applicants inasmuch as the same is a decision entirely on the facts of the case, which is obvious from para 7 of the said decision. The Supreme Court dealt with the question of limitation, and the contention as regards delay, entirely on the facts of the case. On a consideration of the relevant facts, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that there was no merit in the grounds urged by the appellants (of that case) for getting over the bar of limitation.
WHAT IS SUFFICIENT CAUSE EXPLAINS GUJRATH HIGH COURT
M. B: Shah & Y. B. Bhatt, JJ in the case of Municipal Corporation Of ... vs Voltas Limited And Etc. Etc. Reported in AIR 1995 Guj 29,
1. The phrase 'sufficient cause' as occurring in Section 8 of the Limitation Act pertains to the establishment of the appropriate facts before the Court to which the Court can apply is mind and arrive at a conclusion regarding the sufficiency of the cause or otherwise. In essence, therefore, the phrase 'sufficient cause' is not a question of principle, but is a question of fact. Hence, whether to condone the delay or not depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case as 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay depends only on the facts placed by the applicants before the Court;
2. The plea, on the, part to the applicants that the delay was caused by 'administrative delay administrative reasons/administrative procedure' (and analogous expressions) is merely an averment in the nature of a plea which by itself and ipso facto does not establish sufficiency of the cause for condonation. Precise factual reasons for the delay within the general ambit of the said phrase must be established and that too to the satisfaction of the Court. Hence, it cannot be held that, because the applicant is a Municipal Corporation or a statutory authority, delay should be condoned even if no reason or I cause for delay in filing appeal is mentioned in the application and mere mention of the phrase 'administrative delay' in the application for condonation of delay is no sufficient cause by any standard;
3. The merits of the substantial case in respect of which condonation is sought cannot over-ride the provisions of Sections 3 and 5 of the Limitation Act and the merits of the case cannot be regarded as the sole factor or a predominant factor while adjudicating upon the sufficiency of the cause for condonation of delay.
4. Whether the delay is for a short period or a long period is of no consequence. If sufficient cause is shown, long delay can be condoned and if no cause is shown, even delay for a short period may not be condoned.
5. The principle in law only is that the Courts are required to take a liberal view while considering the facts constituting the sufficiency of the cause, on the basis of which condonation of delay is sought. This does not necessarily amount to saying that all applications for condonation must be granted. This is necessarily within the discretionary jurisdiction of the Court, and the Court deciding the application for condonation would necessarily exercise its discretion judicially in 'the light of the well established principles, as regardes the appreciation of the relevant facts.
Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji, reported at AIR 1987 SC 1353. Learned counsel for the applicants, after discussing the said decision, laid particular emphasis on the six factors recited in para 3 of the said decision. These six factors are as under :
"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 the 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 techinical 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 non-deliberate delay.
5. There is no presumption that delay is occassioned 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 legalise on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so."
Supreme Court in the case of Binod Bihari Singh v. Union of India, reported at AIR 1993 SC 1245 are relevant. The observations made in para 10 of the said decision are of far-reaching effect. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed that they were not inclined to hold that the delay in presenting the application (the substantive matter) deserves to be condoned on the facts and circumstances of the case. They further observed that in their view it is not at all a fit case where in the anxiety to render justice to a party so that _a just cause is not defeated, a pragmatic view should be taken by the Court in considering the sufficient cause for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act . The contention, that the ignoble plea of bar of limitation sought to be raised by the respondent should not be taken into consideration in order that the just claim of the appellant should not be defeated, was emphatically negatived. Their Lordships further went on to observe, merely by way of an indication, that it may not be desirable for a Government or a public authority to take shelter under the plea of bar of limitation to defeat a just claim of a citizen; but if a claim is barred by limitation and such plea is raised specifically, the Court cannot straightway dismiss the plea simply on the score that such a plea is ignoble. A bar of limitation may be considered even if such plea has not been specifically raised. The principles that the Limitation Act is a statute of repose and a bar to a cause of action in a Court of law which is otherwise lawful and valid, because of undesirable lapse of time as contained in the Limitation Act, has been laid down on well accepted principles of jurisprudence and public policy. Thus, these observations clearly have relevance on two aspects of the present matter. Firstly, that the bar of limitation creates a right in favour of the party which successfully sets up such a bar, and secondly that the extinguishment of the remedy which is otherwise available to a party under law, is enforced on the basis of well accepted principles of jurisprudence and public policy. This decision also establishes yet another principles viz. that where a just cause is to be weighed against shutting out the same on account of the bar of limitation, the latter must prevail. Even a just cause cannot prevail over the bar of limitation.
Supreme Court in the case ofState of Gujarat v. Sayed Mohd. Baquir El. Edroos, reported at AIR 1981 SC 1921. Court while considering the question of condonation of delay on merits, is barred from looking into the merits of the substantive matter, in the filing of which condonation is sought. ….. merits of the substantive matter had no relevance whatsoever when the Court is dealing with the application for condonation of delay.
Supreme Court in the case of Ram Bhawan Singh v. Jagdish, reported at Judgment Today (1990) 3 JT (SC) 704. In our opinion, this decision does not in any manner advance the cause of the applicants inasmuch as the same is a decision entirely on the facts of the case, which is obvious from para 7 of the said decision. The Supreme Court dealt with the question of limitation, and the contention as regards delay, entirely on the facts of the case. On a consideration of the relevant facts, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that there was no merit in the grounds urged by the appellants (of that case) for getting over the bar of limitation.
WHAT IS SUFFICIENT CAUSE EXPLAINS GUJRATH HIGH COURT
M. B: Shah & Y. B. Bhatt, JJ in the case of Municipal Corporation Of ... vs Voltas Limited And Etc. Etc. Reported in AIR 1995 Guj 29,
1. The phrase 'sufficient cause' as occurring in Section 8 of the Limitation Act pertains to the establishment of the appropriate facts before the Court to which the Court can apply is mind and arrive at a conclusion regarding the sufficiency of the cause or otherwise. In essence, therefore, the phrase 'sufficient cause' is not a question of principle, but is a question of fact. Hence, whether to condone the delay or not depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case as 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay depends only on the facts placed by the applicants before the Court;
2. The plea, on the, part to the applicants that the delay was caused by 'administrative delay administrative reasons/administrative procedure' (and analogous expressions) is merely an averment in the nature of a plea which by itself and ipso facto does not establish sufficiency of the cause for condonation. Precise factual reasons for the delay within the general ambit of the said phrase must be established and that too to the satisfaction of the Court. Hence, it cannot be held that, because the applicant is a Municipal Corporation or a statutory authority, delay should be condoned even if no reason or I cause for delay in filing appeal is mentioned in the application and mere mention of the phrase 'administrative delay' in the application for condonation of delay is no sufficient cause by any standard;
3. The merits of the substantial case in respect of which condonation is sought cannot over-ride the provisions of Sections 3 and 5 of the Limitation Act and the merits of the case cannot be regarded as the sole factor or a predominant factor while adjudicating upon the sufficiency of the cause for condonation of delay.
4. Whether the delay is for a short period or a long period is of no consequence. If sufficient cause is shown, long delay can be condoned and if no cause is shown, even delay for a short period may not be condoned.
5. The principle in law only is that the Courts are required to take a liberal view while considering the facts constituting the sufficiency of the cause, on the basis of which condonation of delay is sought. This does not necessarily amount to saying that all applications for condonation must be granted. This is necessarily within the discretionary jurisdiction of the Court, and the Court deciding the application for condonation would necessarily exercise its discretion judicially in 'the light of the well established principles, as regardes the appreciation of the relevant facts.
No comments:
Post a Comment