Deputy Chief Engineer vs Biswajit Debnath And Ors

Heard.

This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay of 383 days in preferring the connected appeal arising out of an impugned Award dated 20.01.2018 passed by the learned Land Acquisition Judge (Addl. District Judge), Court No.2, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur in Misc. (L.A.) Case No.49 of 2016 titled as Shri Biswajit Debnath another others vs. The Dy. Chief Engineer (Construction) and another.

Having heard learned counsel for the applicant as also perused the records so made available, this Court is of the considered view that there is no deliberate or intentional delay in filing the appeal, which occurred on account of bona fide reasons, as stated in the application.

In State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Ahmed Jaan (2008) 14 SCC 582, the Court has held that "The 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."

The above principle of law was further reiterated more explicitly by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ummer vs. Pottengal Subida and Ors. (2018) 15 SCC 127 wherein the Court held that "One cannot now dispute the legal proposition that the earlier view of this Court that the Appellant was required to explain the delay of each day till the date of filing the appeal has since been diluted by the later decisions of this Court and is, therefore, held as no longer good law."

The principle which thus can be fairly deduced is that the Court should not get into technicality and in seeking explanation for delay of each and every day from the defaulting party.

Upon perusal of facts and hearing of applicant, and taking into consideration the observations of the Apex Court (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the connected appeal.

Therefore having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the cause shown by the applicant, which is duly substantiated by the presentation of relevant documents and the accompanying affidavit, this Court is inclined to hold that the cause shown by the applicant seeking condoning of delay in filing the appeal before this High Court is a sufficient cause, within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act and, therefore, the application filed by the applicant deserves to be allowed. Application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

As such, in the interest of justice, delay is condoned.