CM APPL. 20146/2019 & CM APPL. 20145/2019 in W.P.(C) 6862/2002 Page 1 of 7

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Date of order: 13^th October, 2023

+

W.P.(C) 6862/2002

SATYAPAL SINGH

..... Petitioner

Through:

Appearance not given

versus

PRESIDING OFFICER P.O.L.C.& ANR.

..... Respondents

Through:

None

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH

ORDER

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J (Oral)

CM APPL. 20146/2019 (Condonation of delay in filing the restoration

application)

1.

The instant application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908, has been filed on behalf of the petitioner/applicant seeking

condonation of delay of 1880 days in filing the accompanying restoration

application.

2.

The captioned writ petition was filed against the impugned order

dated 4^th April 2001, passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. V,

Room No. 54, Karkardooma Court, Delhi, whereby, the respondent has held

that 17 workmen failed to prove that they had completed 240 days or more

in the service of the management in one calendar year immediately

Digitally Signed By:SARIKA

BHAMOO VERMA

Signing Date:21.10.2023

14:09:13

Signature Not Verified

CM APPL. 20146/2019 & CM APPL. 20145/2019 in W.P.(C) 6862/2002 Page 2 of 7

preceding the date of their termination and hence, they are not entitled for

any relief.

3.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant/petitioner

submitted that the instant application has been filed seeking condonation of

delay of 1880 days in filing the accompanying restoration application.

4.

It is submitted that the captioned writ petition bearing W.P(C) no.

6862/2002 was dismissed in default vide order dated 27^th November 2013.

5.

It is submitted that the applicant came to know regarding the said

dismissal order only when he received the copy of the order from the

registry of this Court by way of applying for a certified copy.

6.

It is submitted that in the instant circumstance, the petition was

dismissed in default and the same is the fault of the petitioner’s earlier

counsel who had failed to appear before this Court diligently and also failed

to inform the applicant/petitioner regarding his non-appearance or any other

update.

7.

It is submitted that the applicant/petitioner could not connect with the

previous counsel since his contact details and even the office address of the

said counsel got changed, and the petitioner was unaware about the same.

8.

It is submitted that as soon as the petitioner came to the knowledge

that the petition has been dismissed for default, he immediately approached

this Court seeking the relief of restoration.

9.

Hence, in view of the foregoing submissions, the petitioner seeks that

the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the application seeking

restoration of the petition to its original stage and number be allowed.

Digitally Signed By:SARIKA

BHAMOO VERMA

Signing Date:21.10.2023

14:09:13

Signature Not Verified

CM APPL. 20146/2019 & CM APPL. 20145/2019 in W.P.(C) 6862/2002 Page 3 of 7

10.

Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and

perused the material available on record.

11.

To condone the delay of 1880 days in filing the application seeking

restoration of the petition, it is imperative to discuss the nature of the said

delay, and whether such delay can be condoned based on the grounds raised

by the petitioner.

12.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter “Act”) provides for

extension of prescribed period for filing an application under any provision

except Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, thereby, giving

powers to the Court to admit such application by condoning the delay after

the prescribed period of limitation, and the said power is to be exercised if

“sufficient cause” has been shown thereto.

13.

The aforesaid provision makes it clear that the phrase “sufficient

cause” is a necessary condi