The court emphasized the principles of condonation of delay, the need for sufficient cause, and the importance of not disturbing substantial rights accrued to the respondent.

G.S. Sistani, J.

Review Pet. 265/2015 & CM.APPL 8846/2015(delay)

1. By way of this review petition, the petitioner/appellant seeks review of the order dated 07.08.2014 by which an application being CM 8803/2014 filed in the present appeal being RFA (OS) 32/2002 seeking permission to withdraw the appeal was allowed. The review petition is accompanied with an application being CM APPL 8846/2015 seeking condonation of 245 days delay in filing the review petition.

2. The necessary facts required to be noticed for disposal of this review petition and CM APPL 8846/2015 are that the appellant herein had challenged the judgment and decree dated 20.09.2002 passed in a suit filed by the respondent under Order XXXVII of the Civil Procedure Code (in short 'CPC'). It may also be noticed that during the pendency of the appeal; as is evident upon reading of the impugned order that the appellant was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.33,10,036/-, which was in the form of a Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) having maturity value of Rs.46,47,590/- as on 18.01.2012. Subsequently, the FDR was encashed and a demand draft was deposited in favour of UCO Bank, Delhi High Court.

3. Mr. Tiku, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the applicant submits that since the Director of the appellant was facing litigation and there was an apprehension of his being arrested in another matter, as advised, he sought leave to withdraw the appeal and release of the amount deposited in this Court which would have been used by him in satisfying the demand in the other matter where he was facing threat of arrest. Counsel further submits that although while allowing the application to withdraw the appeal, the second prayer for release of the amount was allowed with the condition that this amount was allowed to be released in case the respondent herein did not file an execution petition as the earlier execution petition filed stood dismissed in default.

4. The review petition is accompanied by an application being CM APPL 8846/2015 under Section 5 of Limitation Act seeking condonation of 245 days delay. It is contended that the applicant was suffering from cancer and thus, he could not file the application within the time allowed.

5. Both these review petition and application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act are opposed by learned counsel for the respondent, who submits that there is no sufficient cause for condonation of delay or any ground is made out for review of the order dated 07.08.2014 which was passed at the instance of the review petitioner. With respect to the prayer seeking condonation of delay, it is pointed out that the applicant was detected with Lymphoma blood cancer in January, 2015, whereas the order seeking review was passed much earlier on 07.08.2014. Even otherwise, the application so filed is not bonafide, a right has accrued in favour of the respondent which cannot be unsettled and the clock cannot be turned back. The respondent, who is 80 years of age, has still not been able to enjoy the fruits of the decree arising out of the judgment passed as far back as in the year 2002. He further submits that once the appeal has been withdrawn unilaterally and unconditionally, the present application seeking review of the order would not be maintainable as there is no apparent error on the face of the order.

6. Mr. Tiku contends that since the money was not returned to him, the basic ground in the application for withdrawal did not survive.

7. We have heard learned counsels for the parties. The review petitioner seeks condonation of 245 days delay in filing the review petition on the grounds as set out in paras 3 & 4 of the application.

8. It is a settled law that Courts must adopt a liberal approach while deciding an application seeking condonation of delay. It is also a settled law that while considering an application seeking condonation of delay, the court must be satisfied that the delay was on account of sufficient cause and the application is bonafide.