AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anil Kumar, J.
(C.M. Application No. 124841 of 2009)
Heard Sri Sanjay Sarin, learned Counsel for the revisionist and Sri Ratnesh Chandra learned Counsel for the Respondents.
Learned Counsel for the revisionist submits that in view of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay there are good and sufficient ground for condoning the delay in filing the present revision as such the delay may be condoned, the revision may be heard and disposed of on merit.
Sri Ratnesh Chandra learned Counsel for the Respondents opposed the application for condonation of delay moved on behalf of the revisionist in view of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application of condonation of delay and on the basis of the same he submits that as the revisionist has not explained the day to day delay in filing the present revision properly rather in a very casual manner so the application for condonation of delay is liable to be rejected. In support of his arguments he relied on the judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of P.K. Ramachandran Vs. State of Kerala and Another,
After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and going through the record , keeping in view of the law as laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court that if substantial justice is pitted against procedural justice the way should be given to the substantial justic and in view of law as laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Shakuntala Devi Jain Vs. Kuntal Kumari and Others, held that unless want bona fides of such inaction or negligence as would deprive a party of the protection of Section 5 is proved, the application must not be thrown out of any delay cannot be refused to be condoned.
In New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Shanti Misra, Adult, Hon''ble Supreme Court held that discretion given by Section 5 should not be defined or crystallized so as to convert a discretionary matter into a rigid rule of law. The expression" sufficient cause" should receive a liberal construction.
In O.P. Kathpalia Vs. Lakhmir Singh (Dead) and Others, the Hon''ble Supreme Court held that if the refusal to condone the delay results in grave miscarriage of justice, it would be a ground to condone the delay.
In Smt. Prabha v. Ram Praskash Kalra 1987 (Supp.) SCC 338 the Supreme Court took the view that the Court should not adopt an injustice-oriented approach in rejecting the application for condonation of delay.
In the case of N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 133 the Apex Court explained the scope of limitation and condoning of delay, observing as under:
The primary function of a Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice. The time-limit fixed for approaching the Court in different situations is not because on the expiry of such time a bad cause would transform into a good cause. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties . They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy.
The said view has been further reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Vedabai alias Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil v. Shantaram Baburao Patil and Ors. 2001 (44) ALR 577 (SC) .
For the foregoing reasons objection as raised by the learned Counsel for the Respondents against the application for condonation of delay is rejected.
Application for condonation of delay, is allowed.
Delay is condoned.
List for admission after a week.