Can't Condone Delay If Applicant Fails To Show ‘Sufficient Cause’ For The Delay: Jharkhand High Court Reiterates
The Jharkhand High Court has reiterated that the court should not allow an application for condonation of delay until and unless the applicant satisfies the court that he was prevented by any ‘sufficient cause’ from prosecuting the case. While dismissing the second appeal, Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi observed: “The applicant must satisfy the Court that he was prevented by...
The Jharkhand High Court has reiterated that the court should not allow an application for condonation of delay until and unless the applicant satisfies the court that he was prevented by any ‘sufficient cause’ from prosecuting the case.
While dismissing the second appeal, Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi observed:
“The applicant must satisfy the Court that he was prevented by any “sufficient cause” from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the Court should not allow the application for condonation of delay. The Court has to examine whether the mistake is bona fide or was merely a device to cover the ulterior purpose.”
It was the case of the appellants that the decree in the original court was passed ex parte that is why the petition under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. was filed which was contested in every manner. However, that petition was dismissed and thereafter the appeal was filed which was dismissed by the court on the ground that after 1572 days, appeal has been filed and ‘sufficient cause’ has not been shown for condoning the delay.
The High Court observed that there is no dispute about the fact that generally the lis is not to be rejected on the technical ground of limitation but certainly if the filing of appeal suffers from inordinate delay, then it is the duty of the Court to consider the application to condone delay before entering into the merit of the lis.
The court highlighted that inspite of appearance in the suit and contesting the case, a petition under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. was preferred by the appellant in the form of Misc. case which suggests that only to delay the matter the appellant contested the said petition upto the Supreme Court.
The court held:
“This is not a case that once a petition was filed and it was held by one of the court that it was not ex parte decree the appellant stop there and they have chosen to file appeal, however they went upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court thereafter they filed the petition for which sufficient cause of bonafide have not been demonstrated by the appellants.”
The court relied upon the decisions of Supreme Court in Manindra Land and Building Corporation Ltd. v. Bhutnath Banerjee & Ors., AIR 1964 SC 1336; Lala Matadin v. A. Narayanan, (1969) 2 SCC 770; Parimal v. Veena @ Bharti, (2011) 3 SCC 545 and Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai, (2012) 5 SCC 157 in which the Apex Court has held that expression “sufficient cause‟ should be given a liberal interpretation to ensure that substantial justice is done, but only so long as negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides cannot be imputed to the party concerned, whether or not sufficient cause has been furnished, can be decided on the facts of a particular case and no straitjacket formula is possible.
The court stated:
“The statute of limitation is founded on public policy, its aim being to secure peace in the community, to suppress fraud and perjury, to quicken diligence and to prevent oppression. It seeks to bury all acts of the past which have not been agitated unexplainably and have from lapse of time become stale….”
“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”, it further said.
In conclusion, the court held that there is no illegality in the order of the appellate court in dismissing the first appeal on the ground of delay in filing.
Case Title: Pushpa Dave @ Devi and Ors. v. Sri Udai Kumar Rajgarhia & Ors.
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 4
Coram: Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi