The judgment establishes the principle that the law of limitation applies equally to all parties, including the government and its instrumentalities, and emphasizes the need for a bona fide explanation for delay in seeking condonation.

V.K.JAIN, J. (ORAL)

CM 16730/2011 (for condonation of delay of 2660 days in filing CM 16729/2011 for restoration)

This is an application for condonation of delay in filing CM No.16729/2011, seeking restoration of this appeal which was dismissed in default and for non-prosecution on 29.4.2004. There is delay of as much as 2660 days (7 years and 105 days). The following are the reasons given in the application, for condonation of this abnormal delay of more than 7 years:

“2. That the appellant could not file the application for restoration of his aforementioned appeal in time due to the lack of knowledge and intimation of the dismissal order dated 29.4.2004.

3. That the appellant came to know the above mentioned facts of dismissal of its aforementioned appeal when his regular appeal filed by him for some other Khasra Nos. of the same village was come up for regular hearing before the Hon’ble Court of Ms. Hima Kohli in the month of July-August, 2011 as stated in the accompanying application under Order 9 Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC.”

2. When this application was taken up for hearing on 22.9.2011, the learned counsel for the appellant/ applicant stated that ever since the year 2004, till the date of filing of the present application for restoration, the appellant has been unaware of the status of the present case, as he had been advised by his previous counsel that he would get an intimation as to when the matter would be listed for hearing in the “regular list” and since no such intimation was received by the appellant, he assumed that the appeal remaining pending for hearing. Thereupon, the appellant was directed to file affidavit giving details of his educational qualifications and the profession pursued by him. He was also directed to explain as to whether he had withdrawn the amount awarded under the impugned judgment dated 15.01.2003 passed by the Reference Court and, if so, the date on which the said amount was withdrawn by him. He was also directed to intimate as to who was the counsel who was originally conducting the case.

3. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the appellant filed affidavit wherein he has stated as under:

“2. That the deponent is qualified upto inter J.B.T. I.G.D. (Intermediate grade Drawing Examination).

3. That after completion of an education, deponent joined Delhi Govt. School as Drawing Teacher and retired from the job in the month of January, 1996.

4. That the present counsel Mr. B.D. Sharma was the student of deponent due to which deponent appointed him counsel for the aforesaid case and who contested the aforesaid case in lower Court as well as before this Hon’ble Court.

5. That the deponent has no personal grievance against the said counsel Mr. B.D. Sharma as he is like a son of deponent and deponent has still full faith upon him.

6. That the deponent withdrew his first installment of compensation amount for the subject land of the appeal on 21.12.1989 when an order was passed by LAC and further withdrew second installment on 9.12.2004 when an order was passed by Ld. ADJ, Delhi and third installment was of the interest accrued upon the aforesaid deposited amount of compensation which was withdrawn on 3.6.2011.”

4. In Balwant Singh v. Jagdish Singh (2010) 8 SCC 685, Supreme Court, inter alia, held as under:-

“The law of limitation is a substantive law and has definite consequences on the right and obligation of a party to arise. (sic a lis). These principles should be adhered to and applied appropriately depending on the facts and circumstances of a given case. Once a valuable right, as accrued in favour of one party as a result of the failure of the other party to explain the delay by showing sufficient cause and its own conduct, it will be unreasonable to take away that right on the mere asking of the applicant, particularly when the delay is directly a result of negligence, default or inaction of that party. Justice must be done to both parties equally. Then alone the ends of j