IMPORTANT POINT
Parties cannot be allowed to have an unbridled and unfettered free play in matters of timing of approaching Court.

Ashutosh Kumar, J.—CM Appln. Nos.20910/2015 & 20911/2015 (applications seeking condonation of delay in filing and refiling the appeal)

1. The appellant/applicant seeks condonation of delay of 1873 days in filing the appeal and delay of 577 days in refiling the appeal.

2. It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that he has chosen to challenge the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2005 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi in LAC No.359/2004, seeking enhanced compensation with respect to land measuring 4 bighas 2 biswas (Khasra No.128/23) in the revenue estate of village Mundka, of which he is the owner/bhoomidar.

3. The applicant claims that he had been residing in village Mundka and was not aware about his right to file the appeal. It was only when other villagers informed him about the filing of the appeal, then only he realised his folly and contacted his counsel.

4. It is submitted that there are no wilful and deliberate latches or delay on his part.

5. The aforesaid contention of the appellant/applicant has been seriously contested by the respondent No.2/DMRC on the ground that the provisions of the Limitation Act casts a duty on the Court to dismiss any suit, appeal or application if it is made after a prescribed period.

6. Section 5 of the Limitation Act reads as hereunder:-

“5. Extension of prescribed period in certain cases—Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), may be admitted after the prescribed period, if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period. Explanation—The fact that the appellant or the applicant was misled by any order, practice or judgment of the High Court in ascertaining or computing the prescribed period may be sufficient cause within the meaning of this section.”

7. It has been submitted on behalf of the non-applicant/respondent No.2 that bare reading of Section 5 of the Limitation Act makes it obvious that the Court has to be satisfied about the applicant having sufficient cause for not preferring appeal in time.

8. The reasons assigned by the applicant, it is argued, is bogus, absurd and unbelievable, not disclosing any cause much less “sufficient cause”.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the non-applicant/respondent No.2 has expressed regret about unnecessary indulgence being shown to the appellants in general in Land Acquisition Appeals with regard to condonation of delay in preferring such appeals. References of (i) Mewa Ram (deceased) through his LRs and Ors vs. State of Haryana through the Land Acquisition Collector, Gurgaon (1986) 4 SCC 151; (ii) Basawaraj and Ors vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 2014 SC 746 and (iii) Brijesh Kumar & Ors vs. State of Haryana and Ors, (2014) 4 Scale 50 have been taken where the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated the principle that if there is inaction or want of bonafide or negligence of the appellant in approaching the Court in time, the delay ought not to be condoned.

10. In Basawaraj (Supra) the Supreme Court has gone on to state that equity is not a ground to extend the limitation period by condoning the delay if there is no “sufficient cause”. The reason assigned by the Supreme Court is that an unlimited period of litigation would have an impact of rendering a sense of insecurity and uncertainty, depriving a successful party of enjoying the fruits of litigation as finality to a judgment is postponed.

11. The law of limitation, is based on the legal maxim “Interest Reipubulicae Ut Sit Finis Litium” which means that it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation. If legal remedy is kept alive beyond the legislatively fixed period of time, it only generates dissatisfaction. The parties cannot be allowed to have an unbridled and unfettered free play in matters of timing of approaching the Court