Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 95 (HP)

BALAK RAM v. CHET RAM

2000-05-03

M.R.VERMA

body2000
JUDGMENT M.R. Verma, J.—This is applicants/appellants (hereinafter referred to as the applicants) application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 18.2.1999 passed by the Additional District Judge, Mandi in Civil Appeal No. 68/92 whereby delay of 68 days in filing the appeal has been sought to be explained on the grounds, that the applicants are illiterate rustic villagers not knowing the intricacies of the law and are unware of the limitation, that on the basis of the letter received by them from their counsel intimating that the criminal case in the High Court has been decided in their favour, they thought that even the civil appeal stood disposed of by such order and that they had engaged Shri Bhagat Ram Sharma as counsel to represent them in the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi, but said Shri Bhagat Ram Sharma expired in air crash and the applicants thereafter were not in contact with him and as such there was communication gap and the appeal could not be filed in time. 2. The application has been resisted by the respondents on the grounds that the applicants have mis-stated the facts in their application, that the averments in the application that the applicants are illiterate rustic villagers are factually incorrect in as-much-as Balak Ram applicant is in employment under the Government of Himachal Pradesh and Daulat Ram applicant No. 3 is also an employee. Applicant No. 4 is stated to be the President of the Gram Panchayat, and that the applicants cannot be permitted to take the plea that the letter received by them about the decision of criminal case in their favour in the High Court will automatically dispose of the civil appeal pending in the court of the Additional District Judge, Mandi, and that despite being aware of the death of Shri Bhagat Ram Sharma, Advocate, applicants did not care to contact anyone in Mandi to find out as to what happened to their appeal when their counsel has died. 3. The applicants have filed rejoinder wherein the factum of applicants Balak Ram and Daulat Ram being employees has been admitted, but it has been denied that applicant No. 4 is a Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat. Otherwise the averments made in the application for condonation of delay have been re-affirmed. 4. 3. The applicants have filed rejoinder wherein the factum of applicants Balak Ram and Daulat Ram being employees has been admitted, but it has been denied that applicant No. 4 is a Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat. Otherwise the averments made in the application for condonation of delay have been re-affirmed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant records. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the law of limitation is not intended to destroy the rights of the parties and, therefore, while determining sufficient cause for condoning delay, the same has to be construed liberally and in. the absence of anything showing mala fide or deliberate delay as dilatory tactics, court should normally condone the delay. To substantiate these legal submissions, learned counsel has relied on N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, ((1998) 7 Supreme Court Cases 123). 6. On merit, it has been submitted that the delay in filing the appeal is bonafide and the applicants are not going to gain anything by such delay. Since the letter had been received about the decision of the High Court in a case of beating in their favour, they remained under the impression that the case has been finally decided and had been disposed of by the High Court for all intents and purposes. Secondly, they are rustic illiterate villagers and did not know about the law of limitation and the intricacies thereof and, therefore, in the interest of justice, the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has contended that two of the applicants are employees, therefore, it cannot be said that the applicants are illiterate. The applicants knew that their case is pending in the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi wherein they have engaged a counsel who had died, but instead of taking any appropriate steps for further prosecution of their appeal, they did not care to go to Mandi and consult some other Advocate about further prosecution of their case as would have been done by any prudent man, may be illiterate or literate. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the respondents, the averments made by the applicants in the application do not disclose sufficient cause for condonation of delay nor such averments appear to be true. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the respondents, the averments made by the applicants in the application do not disclose sufficient cause for condonation of delay nor such averments appear to be true. Therefore, the delay in the matter does not deserve to be condoned. 8. In N. Balakrishnan case (supra), the Honble Supreme Court has held that the rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. The law of limitation fixes a lifespan for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered and that the refusal to condone the delay would result in foreclosing the suit or from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the Court is always deliberate. Therefore, the expression "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act must be construed liberally so as to advance substantial justice. If the explanation offered for condonation of delay does not smack of mala fides or is not put forth as part of a dilatory strategy, the Court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. 9. However, in the same case, it has further been held that time is precious and wasted time would never revisit. During the efflux of time, newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the Courts. So a lifespan must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. 10. The crux of the aforesaid is that once the court accepts the explanation for the delay as given by the concerned party, it must condone the delay. However, the sufficiency of the explanation given by a party for condonation of delay will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. Decidedly, the word "sufficient cause" has to be construed liberally but the extent of the liberal construction should not be such that it may totally ignore the public policy on which the law of limitation is founded and thereby defeat the very purpose of the law of limitation. Decidedly, the word "sufficient cause" has to be construed liberally but the extent of the liberal construction should not be such that it may totally ignore the public policy on which the law of limitation is founded and thereby defeat the very purpose of the law of limitation. Thus, the court must at least be satisfied that the party has shown the existence of certain facts and circumstances which constitute a cause which can liberally be held to be the sufficient cause for condoning the delay. 11. In the instant case, one of the grounds for condonation of delay is that the applicants are illiterate rustic villagers which now admittedly is found incorrect. Even otherwise, ignorance of law is no explanation for a legal lapse which is implicit in the application i.e. that one case of the applicants regarding beating was in the High Court which was decided in their favour. Another civil matter i.e. an appeal was pending in the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi. The applicants were aware that they were represented by Shri Bhagat Ram Sharma, Advocate in the Court of the learned Additional District Judge at Mandi. It cannot be believed that receipt of the information that the case pending in the High Court has been decided in favour of the applicants would lead them to believe that the case pending in the court of the learned Additional District Judge at Mandi stood automatically decided in their favour. Even a layman is presumed to know the distinction between the criminal case and a civil case and the disposal of one can never be an automatic disposal of the other. Therefore, this explanation is not only most unsatisfactory but appears to be a cooked up excuse. In any case the letter which was received by the applicants has not been filed alongwith the application to find out from its contents whether it could have misled the applicants to believe that by virtue of the decision of the High Court in their favour in a beating case, their civil appeal pending in the court of the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi would stand automatically disposed of. The contents of the application which are partially found incorrect, therefore, do not disclose even a reasonable cause much less a sufficient cause for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal: 12. In P.K. Ramachandranv. The contents of the application which are partially found incorrect, therefore, do not disclose even a reasonable cause much less a sufficient cause for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal: 12. In P.K. Ramachandranv. State of Kerala and another, (1997) 7 SCC 556, it has been held that it was not satisfied that there was any explanation much less reasonable or satisfactory one offered for condonation of delay. It was further held that the law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes and the courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. Similar view has been taken by the Honble Supreme Court in the case Lachhman Dass Arora v. Ganeshi Lal and others, (1999) 8 SCC 532. 13. A Division Bench of this Court in the case Prem Chand v. Rup Chand and others, (CMP (M) No. 482 of 1999 and CMP No. 71 of 1999, decided on 26.4.2000) while dealing with similar situation has held as follows:— "Be it stated that law of limitation may harshly affect a party "to the case but it has to be applied with all its rigour as provided by the statute. The court may in exercise of powers under Section 5 of the Limitation Act condone the delay in filing application/appeal if sufficient cause therefor is shown. However, the courts have no powers to condone the delay and thereby extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds nor can the delay be condoned in a casual manner otherwise the very purpose of law of limitation will be defeated." 14. In view of the above factual and legal position, there is no merit and substance in this application, which is accordingly dismissed. Application dismissed. -