Back
2018 Supreme(HP) 661
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J.
State of Himachal Pradesh and Others - Appellants
Versus
Sh. Krishan Chand and another - Respondents
CMP(M) No. 866 of 2018 in RFA No. of 2018
Decided On : 11-10-2018
For the Applicants : Mr. Narinder Guleria, Addl. A.G with Mr. Y.P. Thakur, Dy. A.G.
For the Respondents:M/s. B.M. Chauhan, Hominder Ghezta and Amit Himalvi, Advocates
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to demonstrate sufficient cause for delay condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, emphasizing the need for a liberal, pragmatic, and justice-oriented approach.
Headnote:
Delay Condonation - Land Acquisition - Section 5 of the Limitation Act - 5, 12, 23, 21.1, 21.2, 21.3, 21.4, 21.5, 21.6, 21.7, 21.8, 21.9, 21.10, 21.11, 21.12, 21.13, 22.1, 22.2, 22.3, 22.4 - The court discussed the legal principles of delay condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, emphasizing the need for a liberal, pragmatic, and justice-oriented approach. It highlighted the elastic nature of the term 'sufficient cause' and the importance of considering the bona fide nature of the explanation for the delay. The court also emphasized the distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration, and the relevance of the conduct, behavior, and attitude of the party seeking condonation of delay.
Fact of the Case:
The appeal was filed against an award in a land acquisition case, seeking condonation of a delay of two years and nine months. The appellant department faced resistance from various authorities and ultimately failed to show sufficient cause warranting the condonation of the delay.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant department failed to show sufficient cause for the inordinate delay and dismissed the application, imposing costs on the erring officers/officials. The appeal, being time-barred, was also dismissed.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant department demonstrated sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal against the award in the land acquisition case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the failure of the appellant department to show sufficient cause for the delay, as well as the application of the legal principles of delay condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Final Decision: The application for delay condonation was dismissed, and costs were imposed on the erring officers/officials. The appeal, being time-barred, was also dismissed.
Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J.
The appeal preferred against the award dated 2nd June, 2015 passed by learned Additional District Judge- II, Shimla in Land Reference No. RBT-52-R/4 of 2013/16 is barred by two years and nine months, as per calculation made by the Registry. The only ground in this application raised for condonation of the same is that the file remain unattended with the Dealing Assistant during the period 19.07.2015 to 22.06.2017. Also that, after the executing Court issued the warrant and received by the Commissioner, Temple (Deputy Commissioner), Shimla, the decision was taken and conveyed on 6.1.2018 to challenge the award in this Court. Simultaneously, approval of the Finance Department to provide a sum of Rs.2,51,61,334/- was also sought on 8.1.2018. The said amount stands deposited in the executing Court (Additional District Judge- II, Shimla) on 17.1.2018 through draft No.986037. The Commissioner, Temple was thereafter requested on 22.2.2018 to file an application in this Court seeking condonation of delay. The Deputy Commissioner call for the comments from the department as to what are the grounds on which the delay can be sought to be condoned. The comments by the department were made available to the Commissioner on 1st May, 2018. The papers were returned to the department by the Commissioner on 5.5.2018. Consequently, department had taken up the matter with the office of learned Advocate General, State of Himachal Pradesh on 7.5.2018. The office of learned Advocate General directed the appellant department to obtain approval from the Law Department at the first instance. Consequently, the matter was taken with Law Department, which advised that the same could not be agitated further in the given facts and circumstances. When the matter again referred to the Law Department on 4.6.2018, it has reiterated the advice given earlier. The matter when taken up with learned Advocate General on 8.6.2018, the advice of the Law Department was reiterated by learned Advocate General also, however, simultaneously, opined that there may be no harm in filing the appeal without any guarantee of final outcome. The matter thereafter was taken up with the Hon’ble Chief Minister who directed on 12.06.2018, the then Chief Secretary to examine the matter and it is the Chief Secretary who ultimately taken the decision on 22.06.2018 to file an appeal against the award in this Court.
2. The application has been resisted and contested on the several grounds, however, mainly that the decision to file appeal has been taken contrary to the advice of not only the District Attorney, Law Department and also the learned Advocate General, State of Himachal Pradesh. Also that, no sufficient cause is disclosed from the application warranting the condonation of an inordinate delay nearing three years. The application, as such, has been sought to be dismissed.
3. Before coming to the given facts and circumstances and also the rival submissions, it is desirable to take note that the party seeking condonation of delay must show sufficient cause and the Court seized of the matter to construe the expression sufficient cause liberally i.e. if the party seeking condonation of delay is able to show with the help of plausible and reasonable explanation leading to cause delay, the same should be condoned. At the same time, it is also well established at this stage that law of limitation may be harsh to a party, however, it should be applied with all rigor and the Court have no power to condone the delay in case sufficient cause is not found to have been shown.
4. Before adverting to the given facts and circumstances, it is deemed appropriate to make reference to the legal principles laid down in various judicial pronouncements. The Apex Court in Maniben Devraj Shah V. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai, (2012) 5 SCC, 157 has held that though a liberal and justice oriented approach is required to be adopted while considering an application under
