Condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act requires sufficient cause, particularly in State cases where habitual laxity is inexcusable; costs may be imposed to deter frivolous appeals.

JUDGMENT :

PRASHANT KUMAR, J.

C.M. Application No. 20593 of 2017

1. Heard Shri Anuj Kudesia, Additional Advocate General as well as Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/State.

2. The second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 23.07.2003 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Court No.5, Lakhimpur Kheri in Civil Appeal No. 230 of 2001 ( Prabhagiya Van Adhikari and others v. Dev Kumar Chopra and others ), whereby the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgement and decree dated 15.05.2000 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Lakhimpur Kheri in Regular Suit No. 108 of 1995 ( Dev Kumar Chopra v. Prabhagiya Van Adhikari and others ) moved by the appellants under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been rejected. This appeal was filed with the delay of 4957 days.

3. This is an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

Factual matrix of the case are as follows:

4. The respondent nos.1 and 2 (plaintiffs) owned a brick-kiln and was in a business of manufacturing bricks. The respondents supplied bricks to the Government and other government agencies from time to time and whenever quotation was called for, they used to give quotation for the same. In the year 1992, the defendant no.1/appellant no.2 sought for a quotation for 35,000 best quality bricks. The same was given by the plaintiffs/respondent nos.1 and 2. On 07.03.1992 an order was placed to provide 35,000 best quality bricks and to be delivered in the office of the defendant no.1/appellant no.2. The agreed rate was Rs.875/- per thousand, which included transportation, unloading and stacking. As per order the plaintiffs/respondent nos.1 and 2 supplied 35,000 bricks. The defendant no.1/appellant no.2 further directed him to provide additional 8,000 bricks, which were also supplied and transported, unloaded and stacked in the office of the defendant no.2/appellant no.3. At that point of time, defendant no.1/appellant no.2 returned 15024 bricks, which were not upto the mark, however, the defendant no.1/appellant no.2 retained 28,476 bricks, which according to the agreement were valued Rs.24,966.50/-. All the bricks were supplied on 27.03.1992. As per agreement the payment was to be made within three months. Accordingly, the payment became due on 27.06.1992. After getting the bricks, the defendant no.1/appellant no.2 did not pay the amount. Hence, plaintiff preferred a suit for recovery of the amount. In this suit, written statement was filed by the appellants. After hearing the parties, the civil court framed issues and ultimately decreed the suit vide order dated 15.05.2000.

5. The appellants herein assailed this decree and judgement dated 15.05.2000 passed by the civil court by preferring appeal bearing Civil Appeal No.230 of 2001 before the appellate court i.e. Additional District Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri. This appeal was filed after a delay of 1 year and 4 months and the same was rejected vide order dated 23.07.2003 on the ground of delay and on merits.

6. Further after a delay of almost about 9 months, on an advice given by the counsel for the appellants, a civil revision bearing Civil Revision No.61 of 2004 was filed before this Court on 21.04.2004, which got rejected vide order dated 18.09.2015, which is quoted below:

“Sri Adnan Ahmad, State Law Officer candidly states that this revision is not maintainable in view