Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
SUJOY PAUL, NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, JJ.
The Managing Director – Petitioner
Versus
K. Mahender - Respondent
Writ Petition No.14027 Of 2024
Decided On : 05-09-2024
(A) Indian Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Writ of Certiorari – Delay in re-presentation of appeals – The petitioner sought to condone the delay in re-presenting appeals due to the change of counsel and misplacement of files – The State Commission dismissed the petitions citing lack of bonafides – The court emphasized the need for a liberal approach in condoning delays when justified – The court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the State Commission's order, subject to costs. (Paras 6, 8, 10)
(B) Principles of Condoning Delay – The court reiterated that a litigant does not benefit from delay and that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities – The court referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Another Vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, emphasizing a rational and pragmatic approach to delay applications. (Paras 8, 9)
Facts of the case: The petitioner challenged the dismissal of appeals due to a delay of 425 days in re-presentation, attributing it to the previous counsel's workload and misplacement of files.
Findings of Court: The court found sufficient cause for condoning the delay and criticized the State Commission's rigid approach.
Issues: The main issues were whether the delay in re-presentation was justified and if the State Commission erred in dismissing the petitions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the delay was not deliberate and emphasized the importance of a justice-oriented approach in such matters.
Result: Writ petition allowed, setting aside the State Commission's order, subject to costs.
ORDER :
(Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, J.)
This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that aggrieved by the order of the District Consumer Commission, Adilabad, in C.C.No.9 of 2018, the petitioner preferred an appeal in F.A.(Sr).No.740 of 2023. Initially, the appeal was filed through the earlier counsel. Due to his workload, the earlier counsel could not pay proper attention to the batches of appeals filed by him. In such circumstances, the petitioner has changed his counsel and requested the new counsel to attend to all such cases filed by the then counsel. Accordingly, the new counsel took the return of the bundles and, having noted the objections raised by the office, complied with the said objections and re-submitted the file with an application to condone the delay in the re-presentation of the appeal indicating the aforesaid reasons.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that notwithstanding the application to condone delay. However, in similar matters, the Telangana State Commission has been condoning the delay in representing the appeals by the very same petitioner, and despite bringing such a fact to the notice of the State Commission, without considering the same, the I.As. were dismissed. Consequently, the appeal was also rejected by the impugned order dated 08.04.2024.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that it is common knowledge that if there is any delay in the re-presentation of the appeals, normally, the delay occurs in the office of the Advocate to whom the matter is entrusted. Such inadvertent delays in the re-presentations are caused due to the mixing-up of files and mistakes of the clerks in the advocate's office. Thus, there is a justification for condoning the delay in re- presentation of the appeal when there is a bonafide mistake on the part of the advocate or his office, including the clerk. If such delay is not condoned, it would cause irreparable loss to the petitioner, and there would be no justification for putting the petitioner’s interest in jeopardy on account of the mistake made by the Advocate. The said delay is neither deliberate nor wanton but merely because of the change in counsel. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition by setting aside the order dated 08.04.2024 passed in F.A.I.A.Nos.1879 of 2023 and 1880 of 2023 in F.A.(Sr.)No.740 of 2023 and allow the writ petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the record.
6. This Court, having considered the said submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is of the hat view that in the instant case, the State Commission dismissed F.A.I.A.Nos.1879 of 2023 and 1880 of 2023 in F.A.(Sr.).No.740 of 2023 on 08.04.2024 by observing as follows :-
The court emphasized a liberal approach to condoning delays in legal proceedings, prioritizing substantial justice over technicalities.
The court emphasized that in applications for condoning delay, sufficient cause must be clearly demonstrated; mere boilerplate explanations are insufficient.
The court upheld the rejection of a delay condonation application, emphasizing that insufficient reasons do not justify extending statutory limitations.
Delay of 347 days in filing appeals cannot be condoned.
(1) Diligent – A litigant cannot abandon responsibility once a counsel is engaged. To claim counsel negligence, the litigant must prove they were diligent and were misled.(2) Shift the Blame – A liti....
Limitation – Condonation of delay – Term “sufficient cause” u/Section 5 of Limitation Act should be liberally construed promote substantial justice, when delays are not due to dilatory tactics, bad f....
Condonation of delay not a matter of right.
Condonation of delay is not a matter of right and the applicant has to set out the care showing sufficient cause which prevented them to come to the commission.
(1) Limitation – The law of limitation requires delay for each day of delay to be explained after expiry of the period of limitation.(2) Consumer Fora – The purpose of Section 24-A is to ensure that ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
