Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 934 (RAJ)

Chotya v. State

2009-04-01

PAWAN CHANDRA

body2009
ih- pUnz] lnL;-&izkFkhZ ds vf/koDrk Jh jkejru eh.kk dks fuxjkuh dh xzg.krk ,oa izkFkZuk i= vUrxZr /kkjk 5 fe;kn vf/kfu;e ij cgl lquh tk pqdh gSA fuxjkuh eheksa ,oa izkFkZuk i= esa mYysf[kr vfHkopuksa dk /;kuiwoZd v/;;u ,oa euu fd;k gS lkFk gh v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa }kjk ikfjr vkyksP; fu.kZ;ksa dk Hkh v/;;u fd;k gSA 2- bl ekeys esa uk;c rglhynkj ykMiqjk }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 22-12-01 vuqlkj fuxjkdkj dks oknxzLr jktdh; vkjkth ij i'pkrorhZ vfrØeh gksuk izekf.kr ekurs gq, 288 :i;s dh 'kkLrh vf/kjksfir dh x;h gSA lkFk gh oknxzLr tehu ls csn[kyh fd;s tkus ds vkns'k ds lkFk 30 ;ksx ds flfoy dkjkokl ls nf.Mr fd;k x;k gSA 3- mDr fu.kZ; ds fo:) fuxjkdkj }kjk ftyk dysDVj] dksVk ds le{k izFke vihy izLrqr dh ftls mUgksaus muds fu.kZ; fnukad 9-11-04 ls vLohdkj fd;k gSA ftyk dysDVj ds mijksDr fu.kZ; ds fo:) fuxjkdkj us f}rh; vihy jktLo vihy izkf/kdkjh dksVk ds le{k izLrqr dh ftls Hkh mUgksaus vius fu.kZ; fnukad 29-8-05 ls vLohdkj fd;k gSA 4- bl fuxjkuh dh xzg.krk ij fopkj djrs gq, loZizFke eq>s /kkjk 5 fe;kn vf/kfu;e ds izkFkZuk i= ij fopkj djuk gksxk ftl ij eSus xaHkhjrk ls fopkj fd;k gS vkSj fjdkMZ vuqlkj bl ekeys esa fuEu ifjfLFkfr;ka fo|eku gksuk ikrk gwa& 5- ;g fuxjkuh jktLo vihy vf/kdkjh] dksVk ds fu.kZ; fnukad 29-8-2005 ds fo:) bl U;k;ky; esa fnukad 17-3-2009 dks izLrqr dh xbZ gS vFkkZr~ yxHkx lk<s rhu o"kZ mijkUr tks Li"Vr;k dkQh vof/k ls fe;kn ckgj gSA 6- bl nsjh ds lEcU/k esa fuxjkdkj }kjk vius izkFkZuk i= /kkjk 5 fe;kn vf/kfu;e ,oa 'kiFki= esa ts dkj.k vafdr fd;s gS mls fdlh Hkh n`f"Vdks.k ls larks"ktud] i;kZIr ,oa fo'oluh; ugha ekuk tk ldrk gS D;ksafd tc izkFkhZ dh vksj ls gh jktLo vihy izkf/kdkjh dksVk ds le{k fnukad 6-4-05 dks f}rh; vihy la[;k 46@05 izLrqr dh x;h Fkh ¼ftldk ds fu.kZ; fnukad 29-8-05 dks vFkkZr vihy izLrqr gksus ds pkj ekg esa gh dj fn;k x;k Fkk½ rks ;g ugha ekuk tk ldrk gS fd pkj ekg mijkUr fnukad 29-8-05 dks gq, fu.kZ; dk mls Kku ugha gks ik;k gksA dqN nsj ds fy, ;g eku fy;k tkos fd izkFkhZ ds vf/koDrk }kjk mls jktLo vihy izkf/kdkjh dksVk ds fu.kZ; ls le; ij lwfpr ugha fd;k Fkk ¼;|fi izkFkhZ dk ,slk dksbZ dFku ugha gS½ rks Hkh izkFkhZ dk nkf;Ro Fkk fd og mDr vihy dh izxfr ds lEcU/k esa le; le; ij vius vf/koDrk ls lEidZ dj tkudkjh gkfly djrk vksj ;fn mlds }kjk ,slk ugha fd;k x;k gS rks fu.kZ; ds lk<s rhu o"kZ mijkUr vkbZ bl tkx:drk ds lEcU/k esa mDr nsjh dks d.Mksu djus dk ykHk mls ugha fn;k tk ldrk gSA 7- blds vykok Hkh fuxjkdkj }kjk ftyk dysDVj ds le{k izLrqr vihy Hkh yxHkx nks o"kZ ls vf/kd le; mijkUr fe;kn ckgj izLrqr dh Fkh fQj Hkh ftyk dysDVj }kjk xq.k voxq.k ij fopkj dj mls vLohdkj fd;k FkkA muds fu.kZ; ds fo:) f}rh; vihy Hkh jktLo vihy vf/kdkjh ds le{k fuxjkdkj }kjk iqu% fe;kn ckgj izLrqr dh FkhA vc rhljh erckZ fuxjkdkj us ;g fuxjkuh Hkh yEch vof/k dh nsjh ds mijkUr izLrqr dh gS vkSj vius izkFkZuk i= ,oa 'kiFk i= esa tks dkj.k vafdr fd;s gS og rfud Hkh larks"ktud] i;kZIr ,oa fo'oluh; ugha gS ftl dkj.k ls eSa bl fuxjkuh dks izLrqr djus esa gqbZ bruh yEch nsjh dks d.Mksu fd;k tkuk U;k; laxr ugha le>rk gwaA esjs mijksDr er dks ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; 2000 vkj,yvkj ¼2½ ist 258 lqesjflag cuke iq"ik eksVj esa izfrikfnr er ls Hkh cy feyrk gS tks fuEu gS& "The law is well settled that the law helps vigilant and not the indolent. The law of limitation is thus fouinded on public policy to see that there should be redressal of legal injury suffered by a party but also to see that every legal injury suffered by a party but also to see that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time. Though the condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the Court but section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be stretched too far so as to condone any length of time. There has to be rationale criterion as regards exception to the explanation seeking condonation of delay. In some cases, the delay of shortest range may be uncondonable due to a want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases, delay of a very longe range can be condoned provided the explanation thereof is satisfactory. The words "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liable construction so as to advance substantial justice, but it does not mean to infer that the delay should be condoned in each and every case unless discretion exercised by the Court is on untenable grounds or is arbitrary or perverse and in that eventuality, it would be a different matter. While condoning the delay in such cases, the Apex Court has further taken the view that the Court should not forget valuable rights which have accrued to the opposite party altogether. It must be borne in mind that he too is a loser if the delay is condoned whereas he would have incurred huge litigation expenses." 8- blds vykok Hkh tc rhuksa v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa ds fu.kZ; leorhZ gS vkSj muesa fdlh izdkj dh rF;kRed vFkok dkuwuh =qfV gksuk mtkxj ugha gksrk gS rks bl fLFkfr esa Hkh vkyksP; fu.kZ; ds fo:) lk<s rhu o"kZ mijkUr izLrqr dh x;h fuxjkuh dks xzg.k dj fopkj.k ds fy, yfEcr j[kuk U;k;laxr ugha le>rk gwaA 9- ifj.kker% mijksDr foospukuqlkj fuxjkdkj dh fuxjkuh dks xzg.krk ds Lrj ij gh mYysf[kr foospuk ds vk/kkj ij vLohdkj dj [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA 10- rglhynkj ykMiqjk@uk;c rglhynkj ykMiqjk ls vis{kk dh tkrh gS fd og lHkh v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa }kjk ikfjr leorhZ fu.kZ;ksa dh fØ;kfUofr lqfu'fpr djk;saxsA 11- vkns'k dh izfr lHkh v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa dks ikyukFkZ o lwpukFkZ izsf"kr dh tkosaA 12- vkns'k [kqys U;k;ky; esa lquk;k x;kA