No Sufficient Cause: Rajasthan HC Declines To Condone 'Inordinate Delay' In Filing Appeal By Party Who Made Unsubstantiated Mental Illness Claims
The Rajasthan High Court has rejected an application for condonation of delay filed after 3 years due to the petitioner's alleged mental illness leading him to be unaware of the proceedings. A single bench of Justice Avneesh Jhinghan observed that the delay could not be condoned mechanically in the absence of any sufficient reason. It was found that the petitioner had failed to furnish...
The Rajasthan High Court has rejected an application for condonation of delay filed after 3 years due to the petitioner's alleged mental illness leading him to be unaware of the proceedings.
A single bench of Justice Avneesh Jhinghan observed that the delay could not be condoned mechanically in the absence of any sufficient reason. It was found that the petitioner had failed to furnish relevant material to prove his claims of mental illness which allegedly prevented him from being aware of the proceedings which were initiated.
The petitioner obtained a lease for mineral masonry stone for an area in Sikar. In 2013, owing to some deficiencies in running the mine, a notice was issued to the petitioner to which the petitioner failed to respond.
The resulting proceedings culminated in the cancellation of the petitioner's lease deed in 2014. Aggrieved by this, an appeal against the order was filed by the petitioner in 2017 after a delay of almost 3.5 years along with an application for condonation of delay.
This appeal was dismissed as time-barred. The second appeal was also dismissed. Hence, the petitioner filed the present petition.
It was argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was mentally upset and unaware of the proceedings initiated for the cancellation of the lease deed. It was only after receiving a certified copy of the order in 2017 that the appeal was filed.
On the contrary, the counsel for the respondent argued that the order cancelling the lease deed was sent to the address of the petitioner through a registered post that had been delivered. Hence, no explanation was provided for the delay in filing the appeal.
Agreeing with the arguments put forth by the counsel for the respondents, the Court referred the Supreme Court case of Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and Anr. in which it was held that the law of limitation was based on public policy to ensure that the parties did not resort to dilatory tactics and sought remedy without delay.
It was held that the delay could be condoned if sufficient cause was given as provided in Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, and the interpretation of “sufficient cause” was flexible enough to enable the courts to apply the law in a manner that serves the ends of justice. If the delay was short, it could be interpreted liberally but if the delay was longer, it should be interpreted in a strict manner. The Court said:
“The courts are bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is shown for not availing the remedy within the stipulated time. The expression "sufficient cause" employed in Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 and similar other statutes is elastic enough to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub serves the ends of justice. Although, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in dealing with the applications for condonation of delay, this Court has justifiably advocated adoption of a liberal approach in condoning the delay of short duration and a stricter approach where the delay is inordinate.”
The Court further referred to another Supreme Court case of Pundlik Jalam Patil (D) by LRs. vs. Exe. Eng. Jalgaon Medium Project and another in which it was held that the court could not enquire into belated and stale claims on the grounds of equity to help those who were vigilant and did not slumber over their rights.
In the background of this analysis, the Court highlighted that no medical evidence of any mental illness was submitted by the petitioner that could explain the inordinate delay of more than 3 years. Hence in the absence of any explanation, the Court dismissed the petition.
Title: Prachin Choudhary v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 178