AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Presiding Member
The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner against the order dated 06.11.2027 of the State Commission in FA No. 1484/2015. The Revision Petition has been filed with a delay of 739 days. An IA No. 2242/2020 has been filed seeking condonation of delay. As per IA, the period of delay mentioned is only 2 months 8 days. In the IA, following reasons for delay have been given:
(a) the Petitioner became aware of the ex-parte order only on 03.07.2019 and immediately moved application for giving opportunity to hear the Petitioners. The said application was dismissed by the District Forum on 31.08.2019.
(b) the petitioner lives in a very remote area and had to procure all the necessary and relevant documents for filing of this Revision Petition.
(c) the Petitioners also remained in band and ill health for two weeks in the month of December, 2019 which also contributed to the present delay in filing the RP.
In the Affidavit dated 20.02.2024, following reasons for delay have been given:
a. The Petitioner became aware of the ex-parte order only on 03.07.2019 when he visited the District Forum, Jaunpur for some work of his friend and immediately thereafter without any plausible delay rushed for the last resort before the District Forum and filed application for granting opportunity to hear the petitioner but his application was dismissed on 31.08.2019 by the District Forum and further vide order dated 31.08.2019 issued new Recovery Certificate against the Petitioner.
b. The petitioner lives in a very remote area and had to procure all the necessary and relevant documents for filing this RP. The Registry of National Commission has wrongly calculated the delay of 739 days i.e. from the date of the impugned order ignoring the fact that the petitioner only became aware of the order on 03.07.2019.
In order to condone the delay, the Petitioner has to satisfy this Commission that there was sufficient cause for preferring the Revision Petition after the stipulated limitation period. The term ‘sufficient cause’ has been explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Basawaraj and Another. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer (2013) 14 SCC 81. Hon’ble Supreme Court in this case observed as follows :
Sufficient cause is the cause for which the defendant could not be blamed for his absence. The meaning of the word “sufficient” is “adequate” or “enough”, inasmuch as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. Therefore, the word “sufficient” embraces no more than that which provides a platitude, which when the act done suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in the facts and circumstances existing in a case, duly examined from the viewpoint of a reasonable standard of a cautious man. In this context, “sufficient cause” means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part in view of the facts and circumstances of a case or it cannot be alleged that the party has “not acted diligently” or “remained inactive”. However, the facts and circumstances of each case must afford sufficient ground to enable the court concerned to exercise discretion for the reason that whenever the court exercises discretion, it has to be exercised judiciously. The applicant must satisfy the court that he was prevented by any “sufficient cause” from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the court should not allow the application for condonation of delay. The court has to examine whether the mistake is bona fide or was merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose.
In Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar [AIR 1964 SC 993] this Court explained the difference between a “good cause” and a “sufficient cause” and observed that every “sufficient cause” is a good cause and vice versa. However, if any difference exists it can only be that the requirement of good cause is complied with on a lesser degree of proof than that of “sufficient cause”.
The expression “sufficient cause” should be given a liberal interpretation to ensure that substantial justice is done, but only so long as negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides cannot be imputed to the party concerned, whether or not sufficient cause has been furnished, can be decided on the facts of a particular case and no straitjacket formula is possible.
It is a settled legal proposition that law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. “A result flowing from a statutory provision is never an evil. A court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation.” The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same. The legal maxim dura lex sed lex which means “the law is hard but it is the law”, stands attracted in such a situation. It has consistently been held that, “inconvenience is not” a decisive factor to be considered while interpreting a statute.
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……..
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.
The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the “sufficient cause” which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona fide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this Court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature.”
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Esha Bhattcharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy [(2013) 12 SCC 649], while dealing with the issue of condonation of delay, after taking note of various authorities/earlier judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, culled out broad principles for considering the condonation of delay applications and also added few more guidelines taking note of the present day scenario. Relevant paras of these are reproduced below:-
“15. From the aforesaid authorities the principles that can broadly be culled out are:
x x x x
ii) The terms “sufficient cause” should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact- situation.
x x x x
iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of.
v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact.
x x x x
vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsule the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play.
viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation.
ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach.
x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation.
xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation by taking recourse to the technicalities of law of limitation.
xii) The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully scrutinized and the approach should be based on the paradigm of judicial discretion which is founded on objective reasoning and not on individual
xiii) The State or a public body or an entity representing a collective cause should be given some acceptable latitude.
To the aforesaid principles we may add some more guidelines taking note of the present day scenario. They are:
x x x x
c) Though no precise formula can be laid down regard being had to the concept of judicial discretion, yet a conscious effort for achieving consistency and collegiality of the adjudicatory system should be made as that is the ultimate institutional motto.
d) The increasing tendency to perceive delay as a non- serious matter and, hence, lackadaisical propensity can be exhibited in a non-challant manner requires to be curbed, of course, within legal parameters.”
In Sridevi Datla vs. Union of India & Ors. [(2021) 5 SCC 321], Hon’ble Supreme Court observed :
Much later, in Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy this court referred to a large number of previous judgments, and observed that adoption of a strict standard of proof sometimes fails to protect public justice and it may result in public mischief. Other decisions have highlighted that there cannot be a universal formula to judge whether sufficient cause has, or has not been shown and the exercise is necessarily fact specific; in Improvement Trust v. Ujagar Singh, the court held:
“16. While considering [an] application for condonation of delay no straitjacket formula is prescribed to come to the conclusion if sufficient and good grounds have been made out or not.”
The court also emphasized that each case has to be balanced on the basis of its facts and the surrounding circumstances in which the parties act and behave.”
Heard Proxy Counsel for the Petitioner, who appeared on behalf of the main counsel with written authority. Revision Petition has been filed with a delay of 739 days as per calculations made by the Registry, although in the condonation of delay application only 2 months 8 days is mentioned. When the condonation delay application was taken up on the last date i.e. 01.01.2024, the petitioner contended that the order of the State Commission was ex-parte order and hence they were not aware of it. They became aware of that order only on 03.07.2019. When during the hearing on the last date, the counsel for the petitioner was asked to explain as to how they came to know the impugned order dated 06.11.2017 on 03.07.2019 only, he stated when the execution proceedings were started against them. However, it was seen that Execution proceedings were started before the District Forum as per 51/2017 on 07.12.2017 itself. As the reasons given by the Petitioner were not convincing, considering the request of the petitioner another opportunity was given to the Petitioner to file a better affidavit explaining the reasons for delay and the affidavit in support of his pleadings and argue the case through an authorised counsel on the next date. Even in the Revision Petition, the Petitioners have stated that the Petitioners only came to know about the said ex parte order after the Respondent filed Execution suit 51/2017 before the District Forum. Now in the revised affidavit filed on 20.02.2024 in pursuance to the order dated 01.01.2024 of this Commission, the Petitioner states that he became aware of the ex parte order only on 03.07.2019 when he visited the District Forum Jaunpur for some work of his friend and immediately thereafter without any delay rushed before the District Forum and filed an application for granting opportunity to hear the Petitioner but the said application was dismissed on 31.08.2019 by the District Forum. We are not finding this reasoning given by the Petitioner convincing and there is no evidence in support of such a new contention raised, which is different from the one raised in their Revision Petition.
Accordingly after careful consideration of the IA 2242/2020 for condonation of delay read alongwith Affidavit filed on 20.02.2024 and the additional reasons stated during the hearing, we are of the view that the Petitioner has not been able to convincingly explain reasons for delay/grounds for delay. Accordingly, IA/2242/2020 for condonation of delay is rejected. Consequently, Revision Petition is dismissed on account of limitation.
The pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off.