AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
[1] Heard Ld. Sr. Counsel Mr. Somik Deb for the petitioner. Also heard Ld. Dy.S.G.I Mr. B. Majumder for respondent Nos.1 & 2 as well as Mr. Paramartha Datta for the respondent No.3.
[2] The petitioner has filed a petition for review of the order dated 07.02.2024 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in WP(C) No.93 of 2024 wherein the petitioner prayed for withdrawing from the Writ Petition to invoke appellate remedy and accordingly the Writ Petition was dismissed as withdrawn on that day. The petitioner intends to get review of said order.
[3] Along with the review petition, the instant petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed condoning the delay of 362 days in presenting said petition for review.
[4] Ld. Sr. Counsel Mr. Deb submits that after the said order was passed on 07.02.2024, on 04.05.2024 the review petitioner consulted with his engaged Advocate at Guahati who advised him to file a petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India but as he was not satisfied with said legal advice, he went to New Delhi and consulted with one Advocate there who advised him to submit a Writ Petition before the High Court. He accordingly contacted with Ms. Adwitiya Chakraborty and as per advice of Ms. Charaborty, Ld. Counsel, he contacted with Ld. Sr. Counsel Mr. Somik Deb who initially suggested him for presenting a Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, however, later on he after meticulous study of the record, finally advised the petitioner to submit the Review Petition before this Court and on collection of some certified copies of the orders/ judgments, the review petition was filed on 18.03.2025 with a delay of 362 days.
[5] Ld. Sr. Counsel, Mr. Somik Deb submits that there was no negligence on the part of the petitioner in pursuing his cause and actually delay was occasioned in obtaining legal advices from different Ld. Advocates as different nature of advices were given by different Advocates. Therefore, some leniency may be shown to the petitioner and for ends of justice the petition may be allowed.
[6] Ld. Counsel of the respondents opposes the prayer stating that there is apparent negligence in the conduct of the petitioner disentitling him to get such discretionary relief.
[7] At the outset, we hasten to express that we are not satisfied with the grounds of delay as canvassed by the petitioner. Reason of forming such opinion, is that the order was passed on 07.02.2024 and therefore the petition for review ought to have been filed within 30 days from the date of filing of the order/judgment, but the petitioner is found to be sitting idle without taking any step during said period of 30 days, and firstly met his Advocate at Guwahati only on 04.05.2024 i.e. almost after 03 months thereafter, and there is no explanation about such delay. Further, according to the petitioner, he was not satisfied with the legal advice received at Guwahati, and so he went to New Delhi 05.07.2024 i.e. after 02 months therefrom. There is also no explanation as to why he was sitting idle again for further 02 months. Ultimately returning from Delhi, he met with Ld. Sr. Counsel Mr. Deb and obtained his final opinion on 02.10.2024 to submit the review petition and after more than 5 months therefrom, he submitted the petition for review on 18.03.2025. So, sluggishness in every step is demonstrated by the petitioner despite having aware of the fact that long ago the time limit for filing the review petition had lapsed. His such lackadaisical attitude in pursuing his own cause disqualify him from getting the relief as claimed.
[8] Law is fairly settled that Law of Limitation is based on public policy and there should be a conclusion of the litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy. Generally provision of Section 5 is construed liberally but apart from liberal approach, justice oriented approach is also required to be kept in mind that right of the opposite party is also not lost sight of. The exercise of power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is discretionary and it may not be exercised if the delay is attributed to the elements of negligence, carelessness and lack of due diligence on the part of the petitioner.
[9] In Thirunagalingam Versus Lingeswaran and Another [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1093], it is observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that while considering the plea for condonation of delay, the first and foremost duty of the Court is to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation rather than starting with the merit of the main matter. Only when sufficient cause or reason given by the litigant and the opposition of the other side is equally balanced and stands on equal footing, the Court may consider the merit of the main matter for the purpose of condoning delay. The delay should not be condoned merely as an act of generosity, and the pursuit of substantial justice must not come at the cost of causing prejudice to the opposite party (emphasis laid).
[10] In view of above discussions, we are not inclined to condone the delay as prayed for and accordingly the petition is rejected.
The IA stands disposed of.