Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL, J.
Regional Passport Officer, Jaipur, (Raj.) & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Manpreet Singh S/o. Shri Sukhdev Singh - Respondent
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 384 of 2022
Decided On : 05-07-2023
Limitation Act - Section 5 - Appeal - Prays for condonation of delay - Computation of period of limitation - Pandemic Covid-19 - Held, plaintiff filed suit seeking correction in his date of birth in passport which was decreed by learned trial Court appreciating evidence on record especially his 10th Class Marks-sheet and his Aadhar Card and a direction was issued to correct date of birth in his passport in commensurate with his date of birth in 10th Class marks-sheet and Aadhar Card - As a matter of fact, no evidence was led on behalf of appellants/defendants for which no explanation has been offered - Finding has been upheld by learned appellate Court re-appreciating evidence on record - Application under Section 5 of Limitation Act as also civil second appeal are dismissed with cost of Rs.25,000/-which shall be deposited by appellants within a period of eight weeks from today with Litigants Welfare Fund - Application dismissed.
ORDER :
1. This civil second appeal, which is time barred by 913 days, is accompanied with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
2. It is stated in the application that delay occurred on account of three successive spells of pandemic Covid-19 and the Hon’ble Apex Court of India has, in Miscellaneous Application No.665/2021 in SMW(C) No.3/2020, provided for exclusion of the period consumed in the pandemic situation for the purpose of computation of the period of limitation for filing of the proceedings.
3. Reiterating the averments made in the application, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the delay occurred in filing the appeal on account of Covid-19 situation. She, therefore, prays for condonation of delay.
4. Heard. Considered.
5. The reasons assigned in the application are not only far from satisfactory but are wholly misconceived and misplaced. The Covid-19 situation was over much before filing of the appeal by the appellants. Although, the appellants have relied upon the order of the Supreme Court of India in Miscellaneous Application No.665/2021 in SMW(C) No.3/2020 dated 23.09.2021; but, thereafter, on the application No.21/2022, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has, vide its order dated 10.01.2022, held as under:-
II. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 03.10.2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 01.03.2022.
III. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply.
IV. It is further clarified that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.
6. Thus, the period in between the 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 has been excluded for the purpose of computation of period of limitation. It further provides that if the limitation starts prior to 15.03.2020, the appellant/applicant would be entitled for remaining period of limitation w.e.f. 01.03.2022. In the present case, the second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 18.02.2020 has been preferred on 17.11.2022 but, the application is bereft of any reason as to why the appeal was not preferred within limitation after 28.02.2022. True it is that some leniency has to be extended by the Courts while dealing with the cases of delay on the part of Government or its Agencies; but, in its garb, the salutary object and public policy behind the Limitation Act cannot be set-at-naught.
7. A Division Bench of this Court has, in case of the Managing Committee, Gyanjyoti Senior Secondary School Vs. Tejpal Singh Tyagi & Ors., DB Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1447/2011 (L) & DB Civil Misc. Stay Application No.11946/2011 vide its order dated 19.04.2012, held as under:-
The central legal point established in the judgment is that 'sufficient cause' must be demonstrated for condonation of delay, and negligence or lack of diligence cannot justify the delay. The court a....
Government departments must provide reasonable explanations for delays in legal proceedings; bureaucratic inefficiencies are insufficient for condonation of delay.
The court established that inordinate delays in litigation must be justified with substantial evidence, and failure to do so results in dismissal of petitions.
The court established that the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 is excluded from the limitation calculation due to the COVID-19 pandemic, allowing for the condonation of delay in filing appeals u....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the doctrine of condonation of delay should be applied judiciously, taking into account the circumstances and the impact of external factors s....
Timeliness in legal proceedings is critical, and mere health claims must be substantiated with evidence to justify delays in filings; lack of sufficient cause leads to dismissal of condonation applic....
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
