Kiru Ram vs State of Haryana and Others

Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia, J.—The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India laying challenge to the order dated 03.05.2013 (Annexure P-9), vide which the application for condonation of delay alongwith the restoration application filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the District Judge, Panchkula.

It is pertinent to mention that the present revision petition also is barred by 501 days in refiling the civil revision and no explanation was given when the revision was filed but in view of the order passed by this Court, a laconic affidavit has been filed that the file was tagged with some admitted cases of the same village and when the list was being made on 24.01.2015, the case was detected and thereafter, the case was refiled. Though an affidavit has also been filed of the counsel alongwith the said application but this Court is of the opinion that even for refiling, sufficient cause has to be shown and such gross delay cannot be permitted to be wished away in the manner which the application suggests. Admittedly, civil revision was filed on 05.08.2013 and thereafter the refiling was done only on 27.01.2015. Nothing has been shown as how the petitioner at any stage approached his counsel to find out the latest status of the case for all this period. The inaction on the part of the petitioner also to prosecute his case is apparent. This Court in Darshan Singh Vs. Surjit Singh, has also held that the delay in refiling also has to be explained and sufficient cause has to be shown before this Court can grant the indulgence and reopen the litigation again. In the said case also, there was a delay of 509 days which was not explained and it was observed that undue latitude cannot be given for complying with the objections raised by the office since a maximum period of 40 days is provided for refiling of the cases under the High Court Rules and Orders after placing reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Prithvi Raj Vs. Smt. Kamal Kanta--> . Similar view was also taken in Krishan Dev Dhiman Vs. Mahesh Bhatia and Others, . In such circumstances, the application for condonation of delay is not liable to be allowed.

Coming on merits also, negligence on the part of the petitioner is apparent at all stages. The suit filed by the predecessor-in-interest for declaration was dismissed on 21.12.2011 by the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Panchkula. A time barred appeal was preferred alongwith an application for condonation of delay, which was dismissed in default on 05.05.2012. Thereafter, an application for restoration was filed on 06.08.2012, which was again dismissed on 10.11.2012 on account of non-appearance of the counsel. A second application for restoration was filed alongwith an application for condonation of delay of 211 days on 19.12.2012 and the ground taken was that the counsel had been appointed as Deputy Advocate General, Punjab and, therefore, nobody had put in appearance on 10.11.2012. The said application was opposed by the respondents and has been dismissed vide detailed order by the District Judge, Panchkula on the ground that there is no sufficient cause made out and the Court cannot come to the aid of the party who is admittedly negligent. It has also been mentioned that nothing has been placed on record that the counsel was appointed as Deputy Advocate General, Punjab and neither date of appointment was mentioned and the explanation given was vague and resultantly, the application was dismissed on 03.05.2013.

As noticed, the revision was filed on 05.08.2013 and objections were raised by the office and was only refiled on 27.01.2015. No apparent sufficient cause has been shown whereby, the petitioner himself approached the office of the counsel to ask as to the latest status regarding his case. It is settled principle that limitation takes away the remedy and certain rights accrue to the opposite side. Courts come to the aid of a person who agitates for his right and not slumbers over the same. Reference can be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in Pundlik Jalam Patil (D) by Lrs. Vs. Exe. Eng. Jalgaon Medium Project and Another, , wherein, it was held as under:-

"22. Basically the laws of Limitation are founded on public policy. In Halsbury''s Laws of England, 4th Ed., Vol.28,p.266,para 605, the policy of the Limitation Acts is laid down as follows:

"The courts have expressed at least three different reasons supporting the existence of statutes of limitation, namely,(i) that long dormant claims have more of cruelty than justice in them, (ii) that a defendant might have lost the evidence to dispute the stated claim, (iii) that persons with good causes of actions should pursue them with reasonable diligence."

Statutes of limitation are sometimes described as `statutes of peace''. An unlimited and perpetual threat of limitation creates insecurity and uncertainty; some kind of limitation is essential for public order. This court in Rajender Singh and Others Vs. Santa Singh and Others, has observed : "the object of law of Limitation is to prevent disturbance and 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". In Tilokchand and Motichand and Others Vs. H.B. Munshi and Another, , this court observed that this principle is based on the maxim "interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium, that is, the interest of the State requires that there should be end to litigation but at the same time law of Limitation are a means to ensuring private justice suppressing fraud and perjury, quickening diligence and preventing oppression.

It needs no restatement at our hands that the object for fixing time limit for litigation is based on public policy fixing a life span for legal remedy for the purpose of general welfare. They are meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but avail their legal remedies promptly. Salmond in his jurisprudence states that the laws come to the assistance of the vigilant and not of the sleepy."

Accordingly, keeping in view the above said principles and noticing the consistent conduct of the petitioner, this Court will not come to the aid of a litigant who has slept over his rights. In such circumstances, the order passed by the District Judge, Panchkula cannot be faulted with and the present revision petition is accordingly dismissed.