If Sufficient Cause Is Shown, Delay Can Be Condoned For Substantive Justice U/S 5 Limitation Act: Gujarat High Court Grants Relief To Govt Company
"The consideration which cannot be ignored is that if sufficient cause for excusing delay is shown, discretion is given to the Court to condone delay and admit the appeal. This discretion has been deliberately conferred on the Court in order that judicial power and discretion in that behalf should be exercised to advance substantial justice", the Gujarat High Court observed recently....
"The consideration which cannot be ignored is that if sufficient cause for excusing delay is shown, discretion is given to the Court to condone delay and admit the appeal. This discretion has been deliberately conferred on the Court in order that judicial power and discretion in that behalf should be exercised to advance substantial justice", the Gujarat High Court observed recently.
The Bench comprising Justice Ashok Kumar Joshi made this observation while hearing a Petition under Article 227, against an order of the District Judge for condonation of delay of 132 days caused in preferring the civil appeal against the judgement passed by the Judge.
Background
The Petitioner, herein, was an electricity company run by the Government and accordingly had to follow due procedure for approval from different departments. This led to delay in presenting the appeal before the First Appellate Court. The Petitioner contended that the delay was only of 132 days, and it should have been condoned since there were no objections from the opposite party. Further, the application for condonation of delay was rejected because of non-joinder of necessary parties. However, the suit was filed through legal heirs of the deceased and the Judge disregarded this fact.
Judgement
The Bench noted the layers of authorisation and various approvals which were required for the Petitioner since it was a Government Company. This was not a case of the Petitioner going into "deep slumber and then suddenly waking up one fine morning with an idea to challenge the appeal", Justice Joshi remarked.
The High Court further relied on Indian Oil Corporation Ltd and Ors vs Subrata Borah Chowlek and Ors [MANU/SC/1252/2010] where the Supreme Court held:
"It is true that even upon showing a sufficient cause, a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay as a matter of right, yet it is trite that in construing sufficient cause, the Courts generally follow a liberal approach particularly when no negligence, inaction or mala fides can be imputed to the party."
Reference was also made to Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. [MANU/SC/0042/1961]:
"In construing Section 5 it is relevant to bear in mind two important considerations. The first consideration is that the expiration of the period of limitation prescribed for making an appeal gives rise to a right in favor of the decree-holder to treat the decree as binding between the parties…The other consideration which cannot be ignored is that if sufficient cause for excusing delay is shown discretion is given to the court to condone delay and admit the appeal."
Justice Joshi opined that though Section 5 of the Limitation Act envisaged the explanation of delay to the satisfaction of the Court and makes no distinction between the State and the citizen, nonetheless a strict standard of proof in case of Government which is dependent upon the actions of its officials who often do not have any personal interest in the transactions, may lead to grave miscarriage of justice. Thus, "the consideration which cannot be ignored is that if sufficient cause for excusing delay is shown, discretion is given to the Court to condone delay and admit the appeal", according to the Bench.
Additionally, the Court averred that the Appellate Judge ought to have ignored the curable technicality of the non-joinder of necessary parties in light of the demise of the original Plaintiff.
In view of these precedents and reasons, Justice Joshi condoned the delay and allowed the Petition.
Case Title: Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd vs Shantuben Sanjaybhai Mer
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 24
Case No.: C/SCA/16984/2021