Delhi Wakf Board vs Mohd.Bi & Ors

Vinod Goel, J

CM No.3819/2019 (for restoration of the Revision Petition) and CM No.3820/2019 (for condonation of 7815 days’ delay in filing the

restoration application)

This is an application filed on 13.12.2018 under Order XLI Rule 19 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for

restoration of the Revision Petition, which was dismissed in default and for non-prosecution on 21.07.1997, to its original number with an application

under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of 7815 days’ (about 21 years) delay in filing the application for restoration of the

revision petition.

Learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner submits that the newly constituted management of the applicant instructed their standing counsel to

prepare a list of appeals, which were disposed of for non-prosecution by this court. Mr.Wajeeh Shafiq, learned standing counsel, on 15.05.2018

informed about the dismissal of the present revision petition. The applicant, thereafter, directed the counsel to obtain the certified copies of the appeal

and orders as the applicant had no record and the previous counsel also did not provide the same. The certified copies were applied for on 22.05.2018

and received on 29.07.2018. Present applications were filed on 13.12.2018.

Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the dismissal of the revision petition was brought to the notice of the present management of the

applicant only on 15.05.2018 and the previous counsel did not provide any record and therefore, the petition may be restored.

Admittedly, the applicant is a legal entity. Learned counsel for the applicant admits that they have a legal department where many law officers are

working. This was the position even in the year 1997. Record reveals that the revision petition was filed through Mr.Raman Kapur, Advocate.

However, as per the order sheets, Mr.B.D. Sharma, Advocate has always been appearing for the applicant in the Revision Petition since 02.11.1989

till 21.03.1994. Thereafter, neither any officer nor the counsel for the revisionist appeared on several dates before this court i.e. 01.08.1994,

20.10.1994, 31.01.1995, 10.04.1995, 16.10.1995, 12.01.1996, 19.03.1996, 08.07.1996, 18.09.1996, 02.12.1996, 28.01.1997, 20.03.1997 and 07.05.1997,

which were taken note of by this court on 21.07.1997 when the petition was dismissed in default and for non-prosecution. The applicant has very

conveniently pleaded that it has no record as the previous counsel did not provide the same, just to make a ground for restoration of the revision

petition. It has not pleaded as to who the persons managing the legal affairs of the applicant/Board at the time of the dismissal of the petition were. It

is also not pleaded as to when the present management took over and decided to get the list of disposed of cases prepared and when the instructions

to prepare such list were given. Even after obtaining the certified copies, the applicant has not made any effort to contact the previous counsels

Mr.Raman Kapur, Advocate and Mr.B.D. Sharma, Advocate to find out the record and communication exchanged. It has also not pleaded if efforts

were ever made to trace the files in the office. Details of officers who dealt with the files has also not been given.

It is a well settled principle of law that a litigant, whether it is an individual or a government body or any legal entity, it owes a duty to be vigilant of

its rights and is also expected to be equally vigilant about the judicial proceedings pending in the court of law against it or initiated at its instance. Now,

after 21 years the applicant cannot be permitted to blame the previous counsel for not providing them the record of the case. The applicant, is not an

individual but a government legal entity having a proper legal department with several law officers who know very well where their interests lie, is

expected to have the entire record with it. It appears that the blame is being attributed to the previous counsel with a view to get the delay condoned.

After filing the revision petition, the applicant cannot go off to sleep and wake up from a deep slumber after the passage of a long period of 21 years

as if the court is a storage of the petitions filed by such negligent litigants. Simply because there is a change in the management cannot give sufficient

cause to the applicant to file such an application for restoration after a long period of 21 years has elapsed. It is also not made clear how many times

the management has been changed after dismissal of the revision petition in default. The details of such changes in management have also not been

given. The litigant is to be vigilant and pursue his case diligently on all the hearings. If the litigant does not appear in the court and leaves the case at

the mercy of his counsel without caring as to what had happened on date fixed, he is bound to suffer.

It would not be out of place here to refer to the following observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in N.Balakrishnan vs. M.Krishnamurthy,

(1998) 7 SCC 123:

“11. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights 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. The law of limitation fixes a

lifespan for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and wasted time would never revisit. During the efflux

of time, newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a lifespan must be fixed for

each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The law of limitation 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 rights 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.â€​

The necessity for enacting periods of limitation is to give effect to the principle that law does not assist a person who is inactive and sleeps over his

rights. The principle which forms the basis of this rule is expressed in the maxim ‘vigilantibus, non-dermientibus, jura subveniunt’, (the law helps

those who are watchful and not those who are asleep). Therefore, the object of the law of limitation is to compel a person to exercise his right of

action within reasonable time as also to discourage and suppress stale, fake or fraudulent claims.

It appears that the applicant/Board is concealing the true facts of its knowledge. It is also evident that the applicant has been careless and negligent

in pursuing its case in the court. Be that as it may, the applicant has failed to make out any justification for condonation of delay or restoration of

revision petition. I do not find any merit in the applications, which are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.