S. Rajamanickam vs The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies

M. Venugopal, J.—Heard Mr.M.Mohan Gandhi, the Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr.D.Muruganandam, the Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents.

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner filed I.A.No. 54 of 2011 in unnumbered Civil Miscellaneous Appeal on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Thanjavur, praying to condone the delay of 640 days in preferring the appeal against the order of the first respondent/Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Pattukottai, in Dispute No. 34/2008-2009, dated 24.02.2009. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned Principal District Judge, Thanjavur had dismissed the I.A.No. 54 of 2011 in unnumbered Civil Miscellaneous Appeal on his file on the ground that ''even though the petitioner stated that he was suffering from physical illness and he has not produced any medical records to the effect that he was suffering from serious illness. Having worked in a responsible position as a Secretary of the first respondent society, the contention of the petitioner that he did not know how to take further action, is not at all acceptable. I do not find any merits in the reasons stated for the inordinate delay. The inordinate delay is not properly explained, etc., and resultantly dismissed the said interim application''.

The learned counsel for the petitioner urges before this Court that the learned Principal District Judge, Thanjavur (Cooperative Tribunal) ought not to have dismissed the I.A.No. 54 of 2011 in unnumbered Civil Miscellaneous Appeal on 22.06.2012 and since the petitioner was at his old age, as such he is not in a position to mobilise resources of fund for preferring an appeal in time and in this process, there had an occasion of delay of 640 days in preferring the appeal.

At this stage, this Court has perused the affidavit filed in I.A.No. 54 of 2011 in unnumbered Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by the petitioner. It is significant for this Court to make a useful reference to paragraph 4 of the affidavit in I.A.No. 54 of 2011 in unnumbered Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the petitioner which runs as under:

"4.I submit that I am a retired employee. I have sustained monetary problems and I don''t have any other source of income. I didn''t know how to take further actions. I didn''t know the limitations for appeal. I am a senior citizen and physically not well. Hence, I could n''t contact my advocate in time. Hence, there is a delay in filing the appeal."

At this stage, this Court very pertinently points out that when a Court below deals with an application/petition for condonation of delay, it is to adopt a practical, pragmatic and common sense approach besides adopting a lenient and liberal view thereby avoiding a pedantic and lopsided approach in allowing the petition to prevent an aberration of justice. If the condonation of delay petition is allowed by the Court concerned, then the maximum thing that would happen is, there is a possibility for the petitioner to step into the arena of the main proceedings and to take part in an arena of further proceedings in a given case.

Per contra, if the delay condonation petition is dismissed at the threshold/nascent stage, then the doors of justice for a prospective litigant will be closed for once for all. Also that the court below should not take a hypertechnical approach or a pedantic approach as opined by this Court.

Be that as it may, in view of the fact that the petitioner in I.A.54 of 2011 in unnumbered Civil Miscellaneous Appeal on the file of the Cooperative Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Thanjavur had inter alia stated that the petitioner had sustained monetary problems and did not have any other source of income, this Court by taking a lenient and liberal view and in the interest of justice, allows the present Writ Petition by condoning the delay of 640 days as mentioned in I.A.No. 54 of 2011 in unnumbered Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and sets aside the impugned order dated 22.06.2012 passed by the Cooperative Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Thanjavur, subject to the condition that the petitioner pays a sum of Rs. 1,500/- (Rupees One thousand five hundred only) to the High Court Legal Services Committee, attached to this Bench, on or before 09.12.2012 failing which it is made clear that the Writ Petition shall stand dismissed automatically without any further reference to this Court.