The burden of proof for condonation of delay lies with the appellant, requiring adequate justification supported by evidence.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants.

2. This second appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 02.07.2024 passed learned Principal District Judge, Dhanbad in Civil Misc. Appeal No.27 of 2023 by which he has been pleased to dismiss the same on the ground of limitation.

3. Mrs. Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the title suit was instituted under Section 87 of Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act being Suit No.58 of 2010 and by judgment dated 12.09.2022 it was allowed in favour of the plaintiff. She submits that against that judgment the defendant has preferred Civil Misc. Appeal No.27 of 2023 which was dismissed by judgment dated 02.07.2024 on the ground of limitation. She submits that 285 days delay has occurred in presenting the appeal as appellant No.3, who is aged about 76 years was ill and she was looking after the case and in view of that the delay has occurred and the learned Court without appreciating the same has been pleased to dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation. She relied in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Another versus Mst. Katiji and Others reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 and submits that the case of the appellant is covered, as such this second appeal may kindly be admitted on the substantial question of law.

4. The plea has been taken that the defendant No.3 is aged about 76 years and a lady was conducting the case and she was ill and her statement was going to Apollo and in view of that the said delay has occurred.

5. The learned appellate court has found that such plea was taken, however, no prescription or other report/medical papers are placed on record showing the appellant No.3 was suffering from any serious ailment. It is averred in para-3 of the application that appellant No.3 fell seriously ill and under treatment at Apollo Hospital, Chennai. It has been claimed that photocopy of medical papers marked as Annexure-1, 1/a, 1/b & 1/c were annexed with the application, but surprisingly, there was no copy of any medical paper annexed. Even the date of her treatment and ailment were also not mentioned in the application nor disclosed at the time of argument. The learned Court has further held that there is no law that only one appellant i.e. appellant No.3 would take steps and remaining appellants are debarred from taking steps. Appellant No.1 was said to be aged about 53 years whereas appellant Nos.2 and 4 are 50 years and 67 years old respectively and the most aged person was taking the step in the case that was found to be unheard by the learned appellate court. In this background, the learned appellate court has been pleased to dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.

6. It requires to refer herein that the law of limitation is enshrined in the legal maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium (it is for the public good that there be an ends of litigation). Therefore, it is well settled that Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties, rather the idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time, as has been held in the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Brijesh Kumar & Ors. versus State of Haryana & Ors. (2014) 11 SCC 351. The Privy Council in General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corpn. Ltd. v. Janmahomed Abdul Rahim, (1939-40) 67 IA 416, relied upon the writings of Mr. Mitra in Tagore Law Lecturers, 1932, wherein, it has been said that :-

“A Law of limitation and prescription may appear to operate harshly and unjustly in a particular case, but if the law provides for a limitation, it is to be enforced even at the risk of hardship to a particular party as the Judge cannot, on equitable grounds, enlarge the time allowed by the law, postpone its operation, or introduce exceptions not recognized by law.”

7. This issue was further reconsidered by Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee v. Ragh