Back
1961 Supreme(Ker) 188
Judges : M.MADHAVAN NAIR
Raman Adiodi - Appellant
Versus
Raman - Respondent
Case No : C. M. P. No. 1149 of 1961
Decided On : 08/17/1961
Advocates Appeared :
R. Krishnaswami; For Petitioner
The responsibility to file necessary applications to condone the delay lies with the party filing the petitions, and the office should not insist on the party to make such applications.
Headnote:
Delay in Filing Petitions - Procedural Irregularity - The court rejected the petitions for condonation of delay as the party failed to file necessary applications to condone the delay along with the petitions. The court emphasized that it is the responsibility of the party to file such applications and not the office's duty to insist on it. The court also directed the Registrar to instruct the office not to post cases preferred after the time for defects being cured, but to send them to the Bench to be disposed of under S.3 of the Limitation Act, 1908.
Fact of the Case:
The Civil Revision Petitions were filed beyond the allowed time without the necessary applications to condone the delay. The office noted the petitions as defective due to delay and posted them multiple times for orders to cure the defects.
Finding of the Court:
The court rejected the petitions as the party failed to file necessary applications to condone the delay, emphasizing that it is the party's responsibility to do so. The court also directed the Registrar to instruct the office on the proper procedure for cases filed after the allowed time.
Issues: Delay in filing petitions, procedural irregularity, responsibility for filing applications to condone delay
Ratio Decidendi: The responsibility to file necessary applications to condone the delay lies with the party filing the petitions, and the office should not insist on the party to make such applications. Cases filed after the allowed time should be sent to the Bench for disposal under S.3 of the Limitation Act, 1908.
Final Decision: The petitions for condonation of delay were rejected, and the Registrar was directed to provide necessary instructions to the office regarding the proper procedure for cases filed after the allowed time.
1. Civil Revision Petitions Nos. 630 and 631 of 1960 are by the same person filed on 16-6-1960 which was admittedly beyond time allowed by the Rules. No application to condone the delay accompanied them. The office, therefore, made a note, on each of the Civil Revision Petitions, on 16-6-1960 itself "Piled on 92nd day; Delay petition not filed". As nothing was done by the party, another note "defect not cured" was made on 22-7-1960 by the office; and the Civil Revision Petitions were placed before Bench for orders on 25-7-1960 when a learned judge of this Court granted two weeks to file the necessary applications to condone the delay. Several months after that the office made a further note 'defects not yet cured', and put up the C.R.Ps. before Bench for orders on 14-2-1961, when it was ordered on them "as a last chance 10 days time is granted. No further adjournment. Post for disposal on 24-2-1961". On 24-2-61, C.M.P. Nos. 1149 and 1150 of 1961 were filed for condonation of the delay stating "Due to an inadvertent and bonafide mistake in calculation there was a delay of 2 or 3 days in filing the CRP. as noted by the office. The delay was occasioned due to circumstances mentioned above and not due to any wilful default on my part. If the delay is not condoned and the CRP. is not admitted, the petitioner will suffer loss".
2. The above facts show that, on the petitions being filed after the normal time allowed therefor, the office of the Court noted the petitions to be defective on account of delay in their institution and has posted them more than once for orders to cure the defects. This procedure is unwarranted. A party instituting any proceeding in court after expiry of time allowed therefor has to file the necessary application to condone the delay along with the proceeding itself. If the matter is out of time, and there is no motion to get the delay condoned it has only to be dealt with as barred by limitation, or vitiated by laches. It is not for the office to insist on the party making application to get the delay condoned. As the circumstances in which the present applications were compelled to be filed indicate an absolute want of bona fides in the averments made in them, the petitions are rejected.
3. The Registrar will give the necessary instructions to the office not to post cases preferred after time "for defects being cured', but to send them to the Bench to be disposed of under S.3 of the Limitation Act, 1908.
Dismissed.
