AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This Appeal has been filed against the order dated 12.08.2005 of the State Consumer Disputes
Alongwith the Appeal, IA/9519/2019, an application for condonation of delay of 13 years has
We have heard the Learned Counsel for the Appellant on IA/9519/2019, application for condo
Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the delay in filing the First Appeal occurred Complaint was filed against Bakul Rani, mother of the Appellant. During the pendency of the Comp direction to the Opposite Party to execute the sale deed. In the year 2006, Complainants filed executi and the Appellant (Suranjan Biswas) is the same person. The Appellant thereafter filed a Writ Petitio 19.05.2009, the Complainant filed an affidavit before the Executing Court that Bhajan Biswas and S of the Complainants and disposed of the Execution case with liberty to the Complainants to take pro dated 09.06.2016, dismissed the Revision Petition with liberty to the Complainants to file fresh Exec as judgment debtor. It was submitted that the Appellant came to know about the impugned order date the deed of conveyance. The Appellant filed ERP/18/2018 before this Commission. This Commissio Appeal alongwith application for condonation of delay.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant further submitted that the delay in filing the Appeal is bona
In this case, Section 14 of the Limitation Act is relevant, which reads as follows: -
"14 Exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in court without jurisdiction. -
(1) In computing the period of limitation for any suit the time during which the plaintiff has b proceeding relates to the same matter in issue and is prosecuted in good faith in a court whic
(2) In computing the period of limitation for any application, the time during which the appli be excluded, where such proceeding is prosecuted in good faith in a court which, from defect
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 2 of Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedu permission is granted on the ground that the first suit must fail by reason of a defect in the ju
(a) in excluding the time during which a former civil proceeding was pending, the day on wh
(b) a plaintiff or an applicant resisting an appeal shall be deemed to be prosecuting a procee
(c) misjoinder of parties or of causes of action shall be deemed to be a cause of a like nature
Opening sentence of para 14 of the Limitation Act says " exclusion of time of proceeding bona has malafide intention to evade implementation of order dated 12.08.2005 passed by the State Comm proceedings and also filed written objection. The ground taken by the Appellant that he came to kno'
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that party who has not acted diligently or remains inactive is test for determining whether the petitioner has acted with due diligence or not. The Hon'ble Suprem
"We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition."
Condonation of delay is not a matter of right and the applicant has to set out the case showing Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361 has held as under:
"It is, however, necessary to emphasise that even after sufficient cause has been show jurisdiction vested in the Court by Section 5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing f discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to
The burden is on the applicant to show that there was sufficient cause for the delay. The expre 6510, as under:
"Sufficient cause is the cause for which defendant could not be blamed for his absenc more than that which provides a platitude, which when the act done suffices to accom "sufficient cause" means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner o However, the facts and circumstances of each case must afford sufficient ground to en the Court that he was prevented by any "sufficient cause" from prosecuting his case, or was merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose. (See: Manindra Land and Buildi AIR SEW 1233); and ManibenDevraj Shah V. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mum
...............
It is a settle legal proposition that law of limitation may harshly affect a particular pa from a statutory provision is never an evil. A Court has no power to ignore that provi choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same. The legal maxim "dura lexsedle considered while interpreting a statute.
...........
The law on the issue can be summarized to the effect that where a case has been prese to approach the court within limitation . In case a party is found to be negligent, or fo the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by impo sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the dela the legislature".
Also in the case of " Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases fo revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consu
In a recent judgment the Hon'ble Supreme court observed that c University of Delhi vs. Union of India & Ors. in Civil Appeal Nos.9488 has held as under: -
"The consideration for condonation of delay would not depend on the status of the pa such case the condonation of long delay should not be automatic since the accrued ri of 34 would not be enough but it should be in the nature of indicating "sufficient caus
.......
That apart when there is such a long delay and there is no proper explanation, laches
On 16.08.2009, the Appellant appeared before the State Commission in the execution proceed an attempt to mislead the Court. In view of the above, we find no sufficient ground to condone the in Appeal is dismissed being barred by limitation.