Delay in filing a Cross Objection can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act if the applicant provides sufficient cause demonstrating bona fide reasons for the delay.

JUDGMENT

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J. - The Cross Objector/Petitioner herein has filed the instant application under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT , 1963, seeking condonation of delay of 1946 days in filing the present Cross Objection. The Petitioner was substituted vide Order of this Court dated 08-12-2021 as the legal representative of his deceased father, Rinzing Dadul Kalden who was the original Respondent No.3 in RFA No.15 of 2016,.

2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner enumerating the grounds for the delay in filing the Cross Objection contended that initially I.A. No.01 of 2022 was filed wherein the delay was computed as 99 days' and withdrawn on the realisation that the original Respondent No.3 had been served with Notice on 10-11- 2006, following which the delay was computed as 1946 days' and the instant I.A. being I.A. No.02 of 2022 was filed accordingly. That, the Appeal being RFA No.15 of 2016 was admitted on 24-03- 2017, but the father of the Petitioner did not enter appearance neither was he represented by Counsel during his lifetime. Vide Order of this Court dated 11-06-2018, RFA No.15 of 2016 was kept in abeyance, in terms of the Order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Others v. M/s. G. D. Goenka Tourism Corporation Limited and Another Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.5552 of 2018 arising out of CC No.8453 of 2017, dated 21-02-2018. That, till 2019 the Cross Objector was in Bangalore and unaware of the pendency of the instant case which he came to learn only after the demise of his father on 22-08-2020. He then approached the Counsel on record representing Respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 (in the said RFA), who however expressed his inability to represent the Cross Objector. On his substitution on 08-12-2021 the Petitioner was unable to appear in the Court on the dates fixed on account of his mother's surgery on 01-12-2021 and the necessity for him to stay with her constantly during her recuperation and other health issues that plagued her then. The Winter Vacation of the Court followed during which period Learned Counsel for the Petitioner was at Ravangla, consequently he could meet her only in the first week of March, 2022, upon which Cross Objection came to be filed on 16-04-2022. That, the delay in filing the Cross Objection was not due to negligence on his part but due to the bona fide reasons mentioned above. It was urged that no prejudice would be caused to any party in the matter as the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in RFA No.15 of 2016 have already filed their joint Cross Objection being C.O. No.05 of 2016, against the issues that have been decided against them which are identical to the issues assailed by the Petitioner. That, the Appeal and the Cross Objection are yet to be heard. That, the grounds put forth hereinabove qualify as 'sufficient cause' to explain the delay which in the interest of justice may be condoned. To buttress her submissions, reliance was placed on The Dean , I. K. Gujral Punjab Technical University v. Sikkim Students Welfare Association of Chandigarh and Others SLR (2020) Sikkim 652.

3. Contesting the submissions put forth by Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State-Respondent Nos.1 to 4 submitted that the original Respondent No.3 did not appear before this Court although Notice was served on him on 10-11-2016, nor did he enter appearance before the Learned Trial Court, indicating his indifference in the matter. On 22-11-2021, the Petitioner herein suddenly appeared on the demise of Respondent No.3 on 22-08- 2020 and was substituted vide Order of this Court