Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(RAJ) 28732
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA, J
LRS OF GUNESH RAM – Appellant
Versus
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER (ONGCL) BARMER – Respondent
CMA / 394 / 2021
The court held that a satisfactory explanation for delay is sufficient for condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, regardless of the delay's length, provided there is no evidence of mala fides.
Headnote:(A) Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Condonation of delay - Applications under Section 5 for condoning a delay of over 600 days in filing appeals were considered - The appellants were unaware of the Reference Court’s award until informed by the Patwari, leading to a plausible explanation for the delay - The court emphasized that the acceptability of the explanation is the primary criterion for condonation, regardless of the delay's length. (Paras 1-9)
(B) Judicial Discretion - The court reaffirmed that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion, where the explanation provided must not indicate mala fides or a dilatory strategy. (Paras 8-9)
Facts of the case:
The appellants were informed of the award only in February 2021, despite it being passed in April 2019, and received cheques for compensation shortly thereafter.
Findings of Court:
The court found the explanation satisfactory and condoned the delay in filing appeals.
Issues: The main issue was whether the delay in filing the appeals could be condoned based on the explanation provided by the appellants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the explanation for the delay was satisfactory, emphasizing the importance of not penalizing a party for their advocate's inaction.
Result: Applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act allowed.
Order
17/01/2024
In S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.394/2021, S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.395/2021, S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.435/2021 and S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.436/2021
1. Matters come upon applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of the delay of more than 600 days caused in filing the present appeals.
2. Service of applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is complete.
3. It has been submitted in the applications that the appellants were not aware of the decision/award as passed by the Reference Court. It is only on 15.02.2021, when the concerned Patwari of the area informed them about the award amount being deposited and to be disbursed. On the said information being received by the Patwari, they contacted the counsel who informed them that although the award had been passed on 04.04.2019, inadvertently, the information of the same could not be given to the appellants.
4. Subsequently, on 23.02.2021, the appellants received the cheques qua the compensation amount and as advised, applied for certified copy of the award as well as the other documents so that an appeal against the impugned award could be filed. The copies were applied for on 09.03.2021 and were received on 15.03.2021. Soon after that, there being Holi vacation, the present appeals were preferred on 30.03.2021.
It has been submitted that the delay being bonafide deserves to be condoned.
5. Replies to the applications have been preferred on behalf of the respondents and it has been submitted that no affidavit of the counsel has been filed to substantiate the fact that the information of the decision/award was not given to the appellants.
Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that a mere allegation against the counsel without being substantiated by any documentary evidence cannot be a ground so as to condone the huge delay of more than 600 days.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
7. The fact that the cheques qua the compensation amount were received by the appellants on 23.02.2021 has not been disputed. This Court is of the opinion that the reason as submitted in the application seems to be plausible as had the appellants been aware of the impugned award/judgment, they would definitely have received the compensation amount instantly and would not have waited for two years. The fact that the cheques qua the compensation amount had been received on 23.02.2021 only, strengthens the ground as submitted in the applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and the same seems to be plausible.
8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy ; (1998) 7 SCC 123 held as under :
"9. It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncontainable due to want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases delay of very long range can be condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory. Once the court accepts the explanation as sufficient it is the result of positive exercise of discretion and normally the superior court should not disturb such finding, much less in regional jurisdiction, unless the exercise of discretion was on wholly untenable grounds or arbitrary or perverse. But it is a different matter when the first court refuses to condone the delay. In such cases, the superior court would be free to consider the cause shown for the delay afresh and it is open to such superior court to come to its own finding even untrammeled by the conclusion of the lower court. .................
13. It must be remembered that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the
