The principles governing condonation of delay emphasize the necessity of showing sufficient cause, where ignorance or negligence of parties is insufficient to justify delays in legal proceedings.

JUDGMENT

Sudhir Kumar Jain, J.

CM No. 3306/2019 in RFA No. 8 /2019 (For condonation of delay)

1. The appellants have filed the present appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 17.09.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge of this court in Civil Suit No. 1090/2013 titled as M/s Rana Chairs Vs Director General (Town Planning), Kolkata Municipal Corporation & others after delay of 1150 days.

2. The appellants filed the present application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of 1150 days in filing present appeal. The appellants pleaded that appellant no. 1 did not participate in the proceedings pertaining to suit no. 1090/2013 under genuine belief that the case would be transferred to the High Court of Calcutta due to lack of territorial jurisdiction in court at Delhi. The appellants came to know about passing of the judgment and decree dated 17.05.2015 on 08.03.2017 in execution petition no 5 of 2017 which was preferred by the respondent no. 1 before High Court of Calcutta when the appellants received notice of said execution proceedings. The appellants filed an application bearing IA No. 4956/2016 under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 17.09.2015 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 05.10.2018. The appellants also decided to prefer the Regular First Appeal (RFA) which was accordingly prepared by the counsel for the appellants and draft of RFA was sent to the concerned department for vetting and signing of the affidavits in the month of November, 2018. The appeal was filed in December, 2018. The delay on part of the appellants in filing present appeal was owing to genuine and bona fide belief that the suit would be transferred to the High Court of Calcutta due to lack of territorial jurisdiction in court at Delhi. The delay of 1150 days was neither intentional nor deliberate. It was prayed that delay of 1150 days in filing present appeal be condoned.

3. The respondent no. 1 submitted that the appellants did not show sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 1150 days in filing present appeal but took flimsy ground of wrong legal advice for condonation of delay which is lacking material particulars. The application for condonation of delay is without any merit and be dismissed. The respondent no. 1 relied on Popat Bahiri Govardhane & Others Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer & Another, 2013(10) SCC 765; Office of the Chief Post Master General & Others Vs. Living Media Ltd & Another, AIR 2012 SC 1506 and The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others Vs. Bherulal, 2020(10) SCC 654.

4. The Law of limitation is based on equitable principle that a litigant should be prompt in claiming the relief in legal proceedings and is required to bury acts of the past which become stale due to lapse of time and have not been agitated within time. Section 3 of the Act, provides that every suit, appeal and application if filed or instituted after the prescribed period is liable to be dismissed although limitation has not been set up as a defence. Section 5 of the Act deals with the extension of prescribed period of limitation. The Court with discretionary jurisdiction can condone the delay and proceed with the case if concerned party furnishes sufficient cause for delay in institution of appeal and application. Section 5 of the Limitation Act reads as under:

5. Extension of prescribed period in certa