AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.J. Shastri, J
The present group of Civil Revision Applications are arising out of an identical controversy, as a result of this, at the request of the learned advocate
for the applicant, all these Civil Revision Applications are requested to be disposed of by present common judgment and order by treating Civil
Revision Application No. 226 of 2019 as a lead matter.
This group of Civil Revision Applications filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure for challenging the legality and validity of the order
dated 07.02.2019 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Danta, whereby the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act came to be
rejected being Misc. Application No. 13 of 2018. Since Civil Revision Application No. 226 of 2019 is a lead matter, the facts are taken from this
application.
The case of the present applicant is that on account of acquisition of land by the respondent â€" authorities for the purpose of Dharoi Dam,
acquisition of land belonging to the applicant was made and the compensation which has been paid by the respondent authorities since at very low
rate, land reference cases were filed by the applicant as well as other applicants. The said references cases including the reference case of the
present applicant came to be decided on 30.04.1994, whereby the reference court awarded compensation which is mentioned in the order dated
30.04.1994.
3.1. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the respondent authorities have preferred group of first appeals headed by First Appeal No. 3186 of 1995 and
the Division Bench of this Court dealt with the said group of First Appeals and disposed of by common judgment and order dated 02.04.1996. Against
the said order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, the respondent authorities have approached the Apex Court by way of Special Leave
Petitions and by order dated 18.04.2005 all the Special Leave Petitions were disposed of on a mere ground of delay. It is further the case of the
applicant that the original order came to be confirmed right upto the Apex Court, but then, the applicant came to know about the fact that some public
spirited litigant/citizen had approached thee High Court of Gujarat in which this Court has enhanced the compensation to the extent of Rs.200/Â per
sq.mtr. As a result of this the applicant preferred execution petition on that enhanced amount stated to have been given in the said proceedings
initiated by the public spirited citizen/villager and thereby while preferring the present execution petition, delay took place of 472 days. According to
the petitioner, Misc. Application No. 13 of 2018 came to be filed at ExhibitÂ8 with a request to condone the delay which occurred in preferring the
main execution petition and that application ExhibitÂ8 having been dismissed, by order dated 07.02.2019, the applicant has filed the present Civil
Revision Application in the month of April, 2019, on which a notice came to be issued vide order dated 14.06.2019, whereupon learned AGP Ms.
Megha Chitaliya has appeared on behalf of the state authorities and today, this group of Civil Revision Applications have been taken up for hearing.
Learned advocate Mr. Himanshu Padhya appearing on behalf of the applicant and representing all the applicants has contended that the delay is
always to be construe liberally and here is a case in which only delay of 472 days have occurred in preferring the execution petition. It has further
been submitted that this execution has been filed on account of information which has been received that this Court has enhanced the amount of
Rs.200/Â per sq.mtr., by way of compensation and for this enhanced amount, the present execution petitions have been filed from the date of the
knowledge and in that process some delay has taken place, which ought to have been taken and dealt with leniently. Learned advocate Mr. Padhya
has submitted that as per Article 136 of the Limitation Act, according to him, cause would start only after a lapse of 12 years and in the present case,
the limitation would start after a lapse of 12 years on reading the provisions contained under the Limitation Act. As a result of this, the impugned order
deserves to be quashed and set aside. According to learned advocate Mr. Padhya, the applicants are illiterate persons, residing in a remote area and
have become landless farmers as their lands have been acquired for the irrigation scheme and as such are entitled to more amount of compensation
which the executing court can certainly grant it. So according to learned advocate Mr. Padhya, this group of execution petitions have been filed by the
applicants with condonation of delay applications for the aforesaid enhanced amount of Rs.200/Â per sq.mtr., stated to have been enhanced by this
court under some litigation filed by a public spirited citizen. However, learned advocate Mr. Padhya has candidly submitted that none of the applicants
are aware about the said order passed by this court enhancing the amount of Rs.200/Â per sq.mtr., and has no copy of the order as well and it is
under bona fide belief of the applicants, the execution is filed for such enhanced amount.
4.1. Learned advocate Mr. Padhya has further submitted and not only admitted that so far as the amount which has been awarded and enhanced in
the reference proceedings which are confirmed right upto the Apex Court, the said amount is already received by the applicants and as such this
group of applications are related to such enhanced amount of compensation and not for the original amount which has been awarded even by the
reference court. But since the applicants are illiterate persons and are not in a position to agitate and drag the litigation and therefore delay ought to
have been construe liberally, Hence, according to learned advocate Mr. Padhya the very exercise of jurisdiction is arbitrary, not in consonance with
the well sound proposition of law on the issue the delay. Resultantly, the error committed by the court below be corrected by granting the relief as
prayed for in the application for seeking condonation of delay. No other submissions have been made.
Now to deal with and controvert the stand taken by the learned advocate for the applicant, learned AGP Ms. Megha Chitalia appearing for the
respondent authorities has vehemently opposed this group of Civil Revision Applications. Learned AGP Ms. Chitalia has submitted that the original
award passed by the reference court was of 30.04.1994, against which first appeal came to be filed by the State authorities and the Division Bench of
this Court was pleased to disposed of the said group of first appeals by judgment and order dated 02.04.1998 so much so that the Apex Court has also
disposed of Special Leave Petitions on the ground of delay by judgment and order dated 18.04.2005 and, therefore, has contended that after almost a
period of 24 years the claimants are out to excavate something, if possible, from the state authorities and, therefore, this speculative move deserves to
be deprecated. It has further been contended that here is a case in which the applicants are not illiterate and stranger persons to the proceedings. On
the contrary, they filed litigation knowing fully well that it has reached upto the stage of Apex Court and then by not disclosing all these facts and by
giving different impression, an attempt is made to get some more money from the state authorities and in furtherance of this object for causing delay,
an explanation is given to that extent that they were not aware about the decision of this Court in which the public spirited citizen has been granted
Rs.200/Â per sq.mtr., enhanced amount and therefore, the applicants also must be paid such amount. Learned AGP Ms. Chitalia has also submitted
that the application is containing no explanation at all. On the contrary, the said application is not supported by any of the order passed by this Court
which is stated to have been delivered in a litigation filed by public spirited citizen, no details are provided and just in a speculative move after an
unreasonable period, an attempt is made to take some more money from the State authorities. Even if the original order if not to be looked into then
also, this recent claim of so called enhanced amount is also beyond the period of limitation of 12 years on undisputed sequence of events and Article
136 of the Limitation act is clearly debarring the applicants for initiating any proceedings. On the contrary, according to learned AGP Ms. Chitalia this
is a serious move taken by the applicants to mislead the court, to mislead the authorities and by suppressing the material fact, an attempt is made that
delay be condoned and such conduct in no circumstances be allowed to be encahsed.
5.1. Learned AGP Ms. Chitalia has then invited attention to the averments contained in application ExhibitÂ1 filed for seeking condonation of delay
and only few circumstances are narrated by way of reason for seeking condonation that the original lawyer of land reference had no knowledge about
the decision of the Apex Court and nothing was informed to the applicants and since the applicants were unaware about the law, delay has caused of
472 days. Now on the basis of this bald averments, not supported by any cogent material, delay is sought to be condoned which in no circumstances is
possible to be condoned in respectful submission of learned AGP Ms. Chitalia. Learned AGP Ms. Chitalia has stated that it is not in dispute that delay
has to be construe liberally, but under the guise of that general proposition, this conduct shown by the applicant cannot be unnoticed by the court and,
therefore, the litigation which has attained finality right upto Apex Court and in absence of no order shown to the court, for enhanced amount, even in
the proceedings generated by a public spirited citizen, the court is thoroughly justified in dismissing the request of condonation of delay. Learned AGP
Ms. Chitalia has submitted that this is nothing but sheer abuse on the part of the applicant which would permit this court clearly to take harsh view in
the matter. However, be that as it may, in the absence of any valid reason or sufficient explanation, the delay may not be condoned as has been rightly
not been condoned by the court below and in the absence of any perversity or material irregularity, looking to the scope of revision, even if another
view is possible, the same cannot be substituted in the absence of any perversity or any material irregularity. A bare look at the order would clearly
indicate that while exercising the discretion, the court below has taken pain to go through the statutory provisions and after assigning the reasons the
discretion vested in law is exercised. Such exercise cannot be termed as perverse in any form. Resultantly, this being the revision application, no order
be passed in favour of the applicants.
Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record, few circumstances are not possible
to be ignored by the court even in respect of condonation of delay.
6.1. First of all a bare look at the averments of Misc. Application No. 13 of 2018 is that this Court has enhanced Rs.200/Â sq.mtr., in the order passed
by the District Court on 02.04.1998 and has asserted that no calculation is made by the authorities on this basis. In para 2 it has been submitted that
this enhancement made by this Court in some proceedings filed, which came to be noticed by one public spirited citizen/villager and therefore, the
execution is sought to be filed. At this stage, it is worth to be noticed is that no name of that public spirited villager is mentioned, nor details regarding
any proceeding is brought to the notice of the court, nor even any order is submitted or referred to in application, except a bare assertion and third
reason which has been assigned is that the present applicant is an illiterate person and were not aware about the fact of the proceedings of the Apex
Court and the original advocate who represented the applicant in land reference cases has not informed about anything of such enhancement and,
therefore, delay has occurred of 472 days. Now, here is also, neither any reference is made about the name of the lawyer who appeared and when
the process is served is also not spelt out in the application which is filed only on 03.08.2018.Now, these are the averments in which, this gross delay
of 472 days is requested to be condoned.
6.2. Additionally, if the overall circumstance is to be looked into, the original reference award was passed on 30.04.1994 which is visible from paper
book compilation on page 114/2/196. This order appears to have been taken before this court by the state authorities which is reflecting on page 115
dated 02.04.1998, in which all group of first appeals headed by First Appeal No. 3186 of 1995 came to be disposed of. The operative part of the said
order is also eloquent only to suggest that what has been stated by the applicant is far from truth. Now this, order passed by the Division Bench of this
court is challenged by way of Special Leave Petition and it appears that on 18.04.2005 all these group of petitions came to be disposed of on the
ground of delay by the Apex Court. So the original order of April, 1994 is confirmed, right upto the Apex Court and for the first time on 03.08.2018,
this application for delay is submitted on the basis of the premise which is not supported by any of the documents or any material. So only almost after
a period of 24 years by now, this fresh litigation is generated by the applicants to claim some more amount of Rs.200/Â which is not established exÂ‐
facie with any material by the present applicants and therefore, on the contrary delay is something more than what has been projected.
6.3. However, be that as it may, these applicants have never produced any order of this Court enhancing the amount of Rs.200/Â, has never given the
name of that one public spirited villager who conveyed them and by taking shelter of non communication by the lawyer whose name is also not given.
This fresh move has taken place which according to the considered opinion of this court is nothing but sheet abuse of process of law at the instance of
some advice to the applicants.
6.4. Yet another factor which cannot be unnoticed by the court is that candidly the learned advocate for the applicants has admitted that the applicants
have no copy of order passed by this Court which is said to have enhanced the amount of Rs.200/Â and further the original amount of reference
award which is confirmed right upto the Apex Court, it was candidly submitted that the said amount has already been received by the applicants. Now
in that eventuality, when all these circumstances are considered by the court, there is hardly any reason to disturb the order which has been passed.
On the contrary, the court is of the considered opinion that the stand taken by the applicants deserves to be deprecated with some stringent
observations.
6.5. Yet the contention which has been submitted by the learned advocate for the applicants is also not understandable that though the statute of
limitation has prescribed a specific period of 12 years, learned advocate for the applicants has submitted that the limitation to raise the
dispute/grievance would arise after a period of 12 years. This appears to be a clear mistaken belief by learned advocate Mr. Padhya and as such,
there is hardly any case made out by the applicants to disturb the finding which has been arrived at.
6.6. It further appears from the record that the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Danta who passed the order in February, 2019, the said discretion
which has been exercised is based upon the appreciation of proper material, keeping in view the statutory provisions and the said order has been
passed after granting full opportunity to the parties concerned and, therefore, such valid exercise of jurisdiction and the discretion which has been
exercised is not possible to be branded by the court as perverse or suffers from vice of material irregularity.
6.7. In the background of aforesaid fact, though the principle is that delay deserves to be condoned liberally, but in that process, such liberal approach
cannot be adopted ignoring all these mischiefs which is tried to be executed in the process of litigation. Here, in the present case, the applicants are not
having any order passed by this court enhancing the amount of Rs.200/Â per sq.mtr., nor has produced any material to substantiate that and further
there is no particulars about the said so called public spirited citizen/villager and also the name of the original lawyer is not reflecting. So this move
which has taken place at the instance of the applicants, in the considered opinion of this court is nothing but a speculative litigation generated to
excavate something which is otherwise not amenable to them. Further be that as it may, the entire application clearly suggest that delay has not been
properly explained. The explanation which has been given cannot be said said to be sufficiently explained to condone the delay and in absence of any
sufficient reason, the court is of the view that delay cannot be condoned in a routine manner. The court is also of the opinion that the statute of
limitation which has prescribed the period of limitation has got its own object behind it and by adopting casual approach the very object of statute
cannot be tinkered with or frustrate a vigilant litigation by giving such approach, but no litigant like this who are on the basis of either some incorrect
information or with an intent to mislead are trying to request the court to condone the delay. This is a fit case in which the delay has rightly not been
condoned by the court below. Hence, no case is made out by the applicants.
6.8. To arrive at this conclusion, the relevant object of the statute of limitation, the Apex Court in the decision in the case of Brijesh Kumar & Ors. v.
State of Haryana & Ors., reported in AIR 2014 SC 1612, has specifically propounded that the object of provisions for condonation of delay cannot be
frustrated in absence of any sufficient cause not shown. Since sufficient cause is condition precedent for exercising discretion, this having not been
fulfilled in the present proceedings, the court deems it proper to dispose of the Civil Revision Applications as meritless. The Apex Court in the said
case has observed like this, which is kept in mind by the court while disposing of the present Civil Revision Applications, hence, reproduced
hereinafter:Â
“11. The courts should not adopt an in justice oriented approach in rejecting the application for condonation of delay. However the court while
allowing such application has to draw a distinction between delay and inordinate delay for want of bona fides of an inaction or negligence would
deprive a party of the protection of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Sufficient cause is a condition precedent for exercise of discretion by the
Court for condoning the delay. This Court has time and again held that when mandatory provision is not complied with and that delay is not properly,
satisfactorily and convincingly explained, the court cannot condone the delay on sympathetic grounds alone.
It is also a well settled principle of law that if some person has taken a relief approaching the Court just or immediately after the cause of action
had arisen, other persons cannot take benefit thereof approaching the court at a belated stage for the reason that they cannot be permitted to take the
impetus of the order passed at the behest of some diligent person.
In State of Karnataka & Ors. v. S.M. Kotravyya & Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 267, this Court rejected the contention that a petition should be considered
ignoring the delay and laches on the ground that he filed the petition just after coming to know of the relief granted by the Court in a similar case as
the same cannot furnish a proper explanation for delay and laches. The Court observed that such a plea is wholly unjustified and cannot furnish any
ground for ignoring delay and laches.
Same view has been reiterated by this Court in Jagdish Lal & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., AIR 1997 SC 2366, observing as under:â€
“Suffice it to state that appellants kept sleeping over their rights for long and elected to wakeup when they had the impetus from Vir Pal Chauhan
and Ajit Singh’s ratios. therefore desperate attempts of the appellants to redo the seniority, held by them in various cadre are not amenable to the
judicial review at this belated stage. The High Court, therefore, has rightly dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay as well.
In M/s.Rup Diamonds & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1989 SC 674, this Court considered a case where petitioner wanted to get the relief
on the basis of the judgment of this Court wherein a particular law had been declared ultra vires. The Court rejected the petition on the ground of
delay and laches observing as under:â€" “There is one more ground which basically sets the present case apart. Petitioners are reagitating claims
which they have not pursued for several years. Petitioners were not vigilant but were content to be dormant and chose to sit on the fence till
somebody else’s case came to be decided.â€
In wake of the aforesaid circumstances, and in view of the fact that no sufficient cause is shown, exercise of discretion is not possible to be
branded as irregular or illegal in any form. Hence, no case is made out by the applicants to seek condonation of delay.
7.1. Additionally, the court is also of the opinion that these Civil Revision Applications are basically applications under Section 115 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, and the scope propounded by the Apex Court about revisional jurisdiction how to be exercised, this court is of the clear opinion that no
case is made out to call for any interference. Even the elements which are required to be established for exercising the revisional jurisdiction are also
not visible in any form, Accordingly, no case is made out to exercise the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The
scope propounded by the Apex Court on this issue is also deserves to be considered, hence, reproduced hereinafter:Â
7.2. Yet another decision of the Apex Court on the issue of exercise of revisional jurisdiction is in case of Ambadas Khanduji Shinde & Ors. v. Ashok
Sadashiv Mamurkar & Ors., reported AIR 2017 SC 2527. Relevant observations of the said decision are in Para.13 which quoted, thus;
“13. Apart from the factual aspect, order lacks merit on the ground of jurisdiction. The High Court cannot interfere with the concurrent factual
findings while exercising jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. It is settled law that revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is
restricted to cases of illegal or irregular exercise by the subordinate courts. Under Section 115 of the CPC, it is not open for the High Court to correct
errors of facts or law unless they go to root of the issue of jurisdiction. In the facts on hand, the Courts below have passed reasoned orders well within
the jurisdiction conferred upon them. We arrive at the conclusion that the High Court committed error in interfering with the judgment and decree of
the trial court.â€
In view of the aforesaid circumstances, and in view of the fact that the applicants have not out come with any valid reason as stated above, all the
Civil Revision Applications are required to be dismissed. On the contrary, the court at one point of time inclined on the basis of statement made by the
learned advocate for the applicants to impose exemplary costs for initiating the present proceedings, but the applicants being the claimants, upon the
request of the learned advocate for the applicants, no such harsh approach is adopted, but in no uncertain term, the court is of the opinion that in the
background of the aforesaid peculiar set of circumstances, this tantamounts to be a speculative litigation generated by the applicants, which deserves
to be curbed. Accordingly, all the Civil Revision Applications are required to be dismissed.
In view of the above, this group of Civil Revision Applications stand dismissed. Notice is discharged with no order as to costs.