Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
ROBIN PHUKAN, J.
The North East Frontier Railways – Petitioner
Versus
Lalnawta S/o Dengchhunga – Respondent
I.A. (Civil) No. 133 of 2023, RFA No. 40 of 2023
Decided On : 20-08-2024
Condonation - Delay in Appeal - Limitation Act, 1963, Section 5 - The Court emphasized a liberal approach to condoning delays, focusing on substantial justice over technicalities, but found insufficient explanation for a 488-day delay, leading to dismissal of the application.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant, North East Frontier Railways, sought to condone a 488-day delay in filing an appeal against a judgment ordering compensation for damages caused to the plaintiff's land during railway construction.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the applicant failed to provide satisfactory explanations for the significant delay, indicating negligence and lack of bona fides in pursuing the appeal.
Issues: Whether the delay of 488 days in filing the appeal could be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court reiterated that while a liberal approach is warranted in condoning delays, the applicant must provide a satisfactory explanation, which was lacking in this case.
Result: The application for condonation of delay and the connected appeal are dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
ROBIN PHUKAN, J.
1. Heard Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned counsel for the applicant; Mr. L. Khiangte, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1 and Ms. L.L. Fambawl, learned Additional Advocate General for the opposite party Nos. 2, 3 & 4.
2. This interlocutory application, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is preferred by the applicant, North East Frontier Railways for condonation of delay of 488 days in preferring an appeal, against the Judgment, Order and Decree dated 01.04.2022, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kolasib, Mizoram, in Damage Suit No. 06/2019.
3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned Judgment, Order and Decree dated 01.04.2022, the learned trial court had directed the applicant to pay compensation, for causing damages to the crops and excess area of the plaintiff’s land, measuring about 2.62 Hectares, which was taken and destructed by the N.F. Railway in excess of the originally acquired area of 0.40 Hectare, while constructing a railway line from Bairabi to Sairang.
4. The opposite party/respondent No. 1 has opposed the petition and filed written objection for condoning the delay. It is stated that while the Judgment, Order and Decree was passed on 01.04.2022, the period of limitation for filing an appeal expired on 30.06.2022, and there is delay of 490 days, as on 02.11.2023, and the same has not been explained sufficiently. It is further stated that while the applicant’s counsel had sent his legal opinion on 13.06.2022, the Law Officer of N.F. Railway furnished his opinion on 26.07.2022, and the time period between 13.06.2022 and 26.07.2022, is 43 days and the same left unexplained. It is also stated that the case file was handed over to the present Central Government Counsel (CGC) on 15.03.2023, while the Law Officer had already furnished his legal opinion on 26.07.2022, and for a period of 7 months, i.e. 230 days, from 26.07.2022 – 14.03.2023, the applicant did not take any positive action. It is also stated that while the CGC has informed the railway official to furnish the reason for delay, the same was provided to him on 12.10.2023, after lapse of about 7 months, i.e. 210 days from 15.03.2023, and there is no mention about what actions were taken by the railway official during these 7 months and therefore, it is contended to dismiss the petition.
5. It is to be noted here that the applicant had filed additional affidavit. It is stated that Law Officer had finally furnished legal opinion on 26.07.2022, challenging the order dated 01.04.2022. It is further stated that the Central Government has vide Memorandum dated 01.02.2022, held that new cases of Central Government will be conducted by CGC and earlier one Mr. Ali Hussain was engaged to draft the appeal, but the present Dy. Solicitor General of India, Gauhati High Court has received the case file on 30.09.2022, and he had allotted the case to the present CGC on 10.11.2022, and thereafter, on 15.03.2023, the case file was handed over to the present CGC. It is also stated that the present CGC has misplaced the file in his chamber due to shifting to the new chamber and thereafter, it was traced out on last week of August, 2023 and thereafter, on 18.09.2023, the mother of the CGC suffered demise and he was unable to prepare the draft appeal till 02.10.2023, and while he was preparing the draft, he took about 10 days time and therefore, it is contended to allow the petition.
6. Mr. Medhi, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Judgment, Order and Decree dated 01.04.2022, was passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kolasib, Mizoram, in Damage Suit No. 06/2019 and thereafter, the engaged counsel of the applicant in the said Damage Suit No. 06/2019, had sent legal opinion to the N.F. Railway on 13.06.2022, stating that good grounds exist for preferring an appeal against the said Judgment, Order and Decree dated 01.04.2022. Thereafter, the law official of N.F. Railway furnished legal opinion on 26.07.2022 and on 15.03.2023,
The Court must balance the need for substantial justice against the necessity of adhering to procedural timelines, requiring satisfactory explanations for delays.
The main legal principle established in the judgment is the liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' for delay condonation, emphasizing the importance of substantial justice and the protection of....
(1) Limitation – Condonation of delay – Phrase “within such period” signifies that period covered therein extends to not only original period within which, appeal or application, should have been fil....
The court held that for condoning delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the party must demonstrate sufficient cause, with mere negligence or vague explanations failing to meet this burden.
Condonation of delay under the Limitation Act requires substantial justification, and the State is treated no differently than private litigants in these matters.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
