AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard on IA 5287/2011 an application for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. There is a delay of 603 days in filing the appeal. The impugned judgment of the trial court was pronounced on 29/1/2010. In accordance with the noting in the certified copy, the appellant submitted an application for certified copy on 19/12/2011 and she received the certified copy on the same day. Thereafter, the appeal was filed on 23/12/2011.
In the application for condonation of delay, it is mentioned that the appellant was not aware of the decree of judicial separation passed by the learned court below and the respondent has misled her. It is further submitted that the respondent had given wrong assurance to the appellant that he would permit her to live with him. Thereafter, when the appellant received information, she filed the appeal. However, the appellant has not mentioned the date when she received information from her Advocate in regard to impugned judgment.
In reply to the application for condonation of delay, it is submitted that there is inordinate delay in filing the appeal and there is no reason mentioned for the delay. The appellant is an educated lady.
There is an inordinate delay of 603 days in filing the appeal. The appellant has not pleaded the correct facts precisely for the inordinate delay. Hon''ble the Supreme Court in the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil (D) by Lrs. Vs. Exe. Eng. Jalgaon Medium Project and Another, has held that the object of the law of limitation is to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but avail their legal remedies promptly and the parties must be vigilant. The findings of the Hon''ble the Supreme Court are as under:
Basically, the laws of limitation are founded on public policy. Statutes of limitation are sometimes described as "statues of peace". An unlimited and perpetual threat of limitation creates insecurity and uncertainty; some kind of limitation is essential for public order. The 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 laws of limitation are a means to ensure private justice suppressing fraud and perjury, quickening diligence and preventing oppression. The object for fixing time limit for litigation is based on public policy fixing a lifespan 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.
In this view of the matter, the application IA 5287/11 for condonation of delay is rejected and consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed as barred by limitation.