IMPORTANT POINT
Diligence and urgency are crucial in pursuing legal remedies, and the absence of satisfactory explanation and good faith may lead to the dismissal of an application for condonation of delay.

JUDGMENT

1. This is an application under Section 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, praying for condonation of delay of a period of 60 days in filing the connected Revision Application against the judgment and order dated 04.11.2016, passed in T.S. No. 39(H) of 2013(Old No. T.S. 22(H) of 2005) by the Court of the Assistant District Judge, Shillong, dismissing an application under Section 10 CPC. The noting by the Registry, however, reflects that the delay as computed amounts to 1486 days after deduction of the regular appeal period of 90 days.

2. The explanation as put forward is that, the petitioner had earlier filed a Civil Revision being CRP No. 26 of 2017, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the same order, on the bona fide belief that an order rejecting the application under Section 10 CPC was not revisable under Section 115, which however, came to be dismissed by this Court by judgment dated 11.11.2019, on the ground of maintainability. Against the said order of dismissal, the petitioner then preferred an SLP being SLP No. 378 of 2019, before the Supreme Court of India, which was also dismissed vide order dated 17.01.2020, leaving the petitioner to pursue other remedies open in law, to challenge the order passed on the application under Section 10 of the CPC.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that, copy of the order passed in the SLP was received on 08.02.2020, from the counsel and as the petitioner was unwell, he could not pursue the matter and the period of limitation expired on 28.02.2020. Other reasons for the delay have been attributed to agitation by local people in Assam, outbreak of the Corona Virus and lockdown from 24.03.2020 onwards and the unavailability of the counsel for the petitioner, who allegedly was out of station during the entire lockdown period and returned to Shillong only on November, 2020. The disruption in the normal functioning of the Courts till November, 2020, and closure of the High Court from 17.12.2020 upto 27.01.2021, for winter vacations are the other reasons cited by the petitioner. Necessary instructions to the counsel therefore, according to the petitioner could be given only on 11.02.2021 to file the Civil Revision which ultimately came to be filed on 10.03.2021.

4. Mrs. P.D.B. Baruah, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. B. Wanswett, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there has been no intentional negligence or any fault on the part of the petitioner in the delay caused in filing the Civil Revision, but the same was occasioned due to unavoidable reasons such as the outbreak of Corona Virus, apart from the period spent bona fide in pursuing the matter before this Court and the Supreme Court, and as such, this period should be excluded by application of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Learned senior counsel also insists that cumulatively there is been only a delay of 178 days, and to substantiate the same has relied on an additional affidavit that had been filed, detailing and computing the number of days. The learned senior counsel has cited the following decisions in support of her arguments, namely Shakti Tubes Limited through Director v. State of Bihar and Others reported in (2009) 1 SCC 786 and Union of India and Others v. West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. and Another (III) reported in (2004) 3 SCC 458.

5. An objection on behalf of the respondents, against the application for condonation has been filed, wherein the respondents have taken the ground that the petitioner had filed the earlier Civil Revision Petition No. 26 of 2017 and SLP No. 378 of 2020, in a gross abuse of process of law with the ill intention of escaping the period of limitation prescribed under Article 131 of the Limitation Act, 1963. It is also averred in the said objection, that the petitioner is challenging an order dated 04.11.2016, passed by the Assistant District Judge, Shillong, after a period of almost 4 years, when the normal period prescribed for filing of a