Back
2020 Supreme(All) 443
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Ajay Bhanot, J.
Vijay Pal Singh (Dead) – Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. And Others – Respondents
Matters Under Article 227 No. 1831 of 2020
Decided On : 03-03-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Akhilesh Tripathi
For the Respondent: C.S.C., Krishna Mohan Asthana
Point of Law:
Courts should adopt a liberal, pragmatic and a justice oriented approach matters of condonation of delay
Headnote:
Limitation Act – Section 5 – condonation of delay – petitioner has made a substitution application seven years after the death of his father – inordinate delay held not liable to be condoned –Challenged – Held, petitioner was not substituted in place of his father even before this Court confirms the fact that the father of the petitioner was prosecuting the first appeal and not the petitioner. There is nothing abnormal in this conduct. In fact it is the most natural manner in which litigations are prosecuted in this State – petitioner is entitled to prosecute the claim for compensation on behalf of his father and is liable to be substituted – Part of the delay was caused by systematic deficiencies – Delay condonation application allowed.
Facts of the Case:
Father of the petitioner had carried the order passed by the learned reference court father of the petitioner had expired in the year 2012. The records of the first appeal were transmitted to the court of learned reference court in the year 2017
Finding of the Court:
Petitioner was not substituted in place of his father even before this Court confirms the fact that the father of the petitioner was prosecuting the first appeal and not the petitioner. There is nothing abnormal in this conduct. In fact it is the most natural manner in which litigations are prosecuted in this State – petitioner is entitled to prosecute the claim for compensation on behalf of his father and is liable to be substituted – Part of the delay was caused by systematic deficiencies
Result: Delay condonation application allowed
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Akhilesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-State and Sri K.M. Asthana, learned counsel assisted by Sri Prabhav Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent No.4.
2. The father of the petitioner late Vijay Pal Singh had carried the order passed by the learned reference court in appeal by instituting the First Appeal No.395 of 2001 (Vijay Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others). The father of the petitioner was prosecuting the first appeal before this Court. The first appeal was decided by this Court by judgment and order dated 09.10.2014. The matter was remitted by this Court to the learned reference court by judgment and order dated 09.10.2014.
3. The father of the petitioner had expired in the year 2012. The records of the first appeal were transmitted to the court of learned reference court in the year 2017. The petitioner moved an application before the learned reference Court in Misc. Case No.557 of 2017 (Vijay Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others) for hearing of the reference. The hearing of the reference commenced thereafter. The petitioner was able to access the full records of the case only on 04.11.2019, before the learned reference court. It was on that date the petitioner got knowledge that the substitution application was not filed on his behalf after the death of his father. The petitioner immediately upon getting such knowledge moved a substitution application for being substituted in place of deceased father/Vijay Pal Singh. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay was filed in aid of the substitution application.
4. While rejecting the delay condonation application the learned reference court in the impugned order dated 13.12.2019 has set forth these findings. The father of the petitioner died on 29.09.2012. This Court decided the First Appeal No.395 of 2001 (Vijay Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others) by the judgment and order rendered on 09.10.2014. The petitioner has made a substitution application seven years after the death of his father. This inordinate delay is not liable to be condoned.
5. I am afraid the learned reference court misdirected itself in law by taking an entirely pedantic view in a matter which engages the most substantive rights of the petitioner. The learned reference court is overlooked the fact that the delay was inbuilt in the system itself. This Court had rendered its judgment and remitted the matter to the reference court way back in the year 2014. The records of the case were transmitted to the reference court three years after the judgment of the court. The proceedings before the learned reference court commenced only in the year 2017 and that also on the misc. application made by the petitioner.
6. The purpose of laws of limitation is to ensure that the parties may remain vigilant to their cause and institute their claim in good time. Laws of limitation are statutes of repose. They are usually triggered in cases of inordinate delay caused by apathy of litigants. The mandate of laws of limitation is not to shut the doors of justice to the parties or decline adjudication on merits. On the contrary it should be the constant endeavour the courts of law to adjudicate issues on merits and dispense justice on a substantive basis.
7. There is good authority to say that the courts should adopt a liberal, pragmatic and a justice oriented approach matters of condonation of delay. Equally the courts should avoid a pedantic view and eschew servitude to procedure in such matters.
8. The narrative shall now be reinforced with such authorities in point.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition V. Mst. Kati Ji and others, reported at 1987 (13) ALR 306 (SC) held as follows:
"The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting section 5 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by dispos
