The court emphasized that the law of limitation must be applied with all its rigours when the statute prescribes, and the court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds.

ORDER :

I.A. No. 10016 of 2015

1. This is an application under Section 5 of the limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 3 years 11 months and 3 days in filing of the instant appeal.

2. The present appeal has been filed against the final decree dated 10.08.2011 passed by the learned Sub-Judge-II, Ara in Title Suit No. 570 of 2003. This Court has been informed that the preliminary decree dated 18.05.2010 passed by the learned court in title Suit No. 570 of 2003 is under challenge in this Court vide F.A. No. 160 of 2005. The said appeal was earlier dismissed due to non-compliance with the order dated 23.08.2013 but thereafter it has been restored vide order dated 20.08.2014.

3. For the purpose of condonation of delay in the present appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the final decree was passed on 10.08.2011 but the learned counsel Mr. Ramadhar Rai, Advocate of Ara Bar Association had not advised the appellant to challenge the final decree. It is further stated that a certified copy of the final decree was obtained on 20.01.2014 but the appeal could be presented only on 20.08.2015.

4. Learned counsel submits that on 16.08.2015 the appellant visited learned counsel who was representing him in F.A. No. 160 of 2010 in this Court, in course of discussion with the learned counsel regarding the final decree, the appellant told his advocate that the final decree has been passed whereupon he was advised to challenge the same.

5. Mr. Laxman Lal Pandey, learned counsel representing the appellant has relied upon paragraph ‘16’ of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Parimal vs. Veena @ Bharti reported in (2011) 3 SCC 545 to submit that for purpose of condonation of delay while judging as to whether the appellant has been able to show sufficient cause, this Court has to exercise its discretion keeping in view the varied and special circumstances in the case at hand. The Court has to see as to whether the appellant has been able to show ‘sufficient cause’. It would be a question of fact. Learned counsel submits that there cannot be a straight jacket formula of universal application as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Parimal (supra). According to him, the reasons shown for delay in filing of the present appeal are such that those will fall in the category of “sufficient cause”, hence the same be condoned.

6. Learned counsel has further relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Maniben Devraj Shah vs. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai reported in (2012) 5 SCC 157 (Paragraph 15, 23 and 27) to submit that the expression “sufficient cause” is to be examined in a given case taking note of the bonafide nature of the explanation and in the cases where this Court finds that the cause shown for the delay does not lack bonafides, then it may condone the delay. It is submitted that in the present case, the cause shown are bonafide and the delay of about 4 years have occurred because the appellant was not given proper advise by learned counsel who conducted the case in the civil court at Ara.

Submissions on behalf of the respondents

7. Mr. Aditya Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the respondents has strongly opposed this application. A counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the respondents. It is submitted that the spacious plea taken by the appellant in the application seeking condonation of delay lacks bona fide. Learned counsel submits that even as the name of a senior advocate at the Bar has been mentioned in the petition seeking condonation of delay saying that he had not advised to file appeal against the final decree but such statements are only bald statements having no sanctity and if such explanations are allowed to be taken, in absence of there being any certificate/opinion of the lawyer, it would be open for any unscrupulous and negligent litigant to upset a settled dispute and a lis would revive even after a long lapse of time.

8. Learned c