AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Deepa Sharma, Presiding Member
The present Appeal has been filed with considerable delay of 454 days. IA No.7715 of 2020 seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the Appellant. In the Application, learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that they could not file the Appeal within time. The Appellant claims deduction of the period which has been exempted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court from 15th March 2020 onwards due to COVID in Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020 vide order dated 23.03.2020. It is submitted that the impugned order is dated 16.07.2019 and the copy was received by the Appellant on 26.10.2019 and the Appeal was filed on 11.11.2020. It is submitted that the delay is very less if we apply the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court given In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation MA No.665 of 2021 in SMW(C) 3 of 2020.
It is argued by learned Counsel for the Respondent that the Appellant is not entitled to the benefit granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the abovementioned case because the period of limitation had already expired and that the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court are applicable only where the period of limitation was alive.
Heard. It is a settled proposition of law that condonation of delay is not a matter of right. The person who has come up with the request for condonation of delay needs to explain delay of each and every day and has to show that there was some reasonable ground for him not to come to the court within the period of limitation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Ram Lal and Ors. vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361” has held as under:
“12. It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant.”
The law also requires the Applicant to act with reasonable diligence as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “R. B. Ramlingam vs. R. B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) (2) CLJ (SC) 24”. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"5. We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition.”
The reasonable reason must be of such nature which prevented him from coming to the court and which was not in his control. In the case of “Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, (2011) 14 SCC 578,” the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that while dealing with an application seeking condonation of delay under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 special nature of the Act has to be kept in mind. The Hon’ble Court has held as under:
“5. It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer Fora."
In the present case, the benefit which the Appellant is seeking is not available to it because findings of the Hon’ble Supreme court in MA No.665 of 2021 in SMW(C) 3 of 2020 (supra) are applicable to the matters where the period of limitation was alive and was to expire during that period. In the present case, the period of limitation had already expired. There is a huge delay of 454 days in filing the Appeal and the Applicant has failed to give reasonable ground. The Application has no merit and the same is dismissed.
APPEAL EXECUTION NO.97 of 2020
Since the Application seeking condonation of delay has been dismissed, the Appeal is also dismissed as barred by limitation.