Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 94 (MP)

Sanjay Kumar Jatav v. State of M. P.

2014-01-16

S.K.GANGELE

body2014
Judgment S.K. Gangele,J:- Heard on IA 1974/12 an application for condonation of delay in filing this writ appeal. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 27/9/2005 passed by Writ Court in WP 250/2004. There is a delay of six years, three months and twenty-eight days in filing this writ appeal. It is submitted in the application that the appellant had no knowledge of the order and he had left his house. However, the order was passed by the Writ Court on 27/9/2005 and it was expected from the appellant that he must have contacted his Advocate. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others reported in 2013 STPL (Web) 737 SC has held as under in regard to the facts which could be taken into consideration for the purpose of condonation of delay. (i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented, non-pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice. (ii) The terms “sufficient cause” should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact-situation. (iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis. (iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of. (v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact. (vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof should not affect public justice and cause public mischief because the courts are required to be vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate there is no real failure of justice. (vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsule the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play. (viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. (vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsule the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play. (viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation. (ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach. (x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation. (xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation by taking recourse to the technicalities of law of limitation. (xii) The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully scrutinized and the approach should be based on the paradigm of judicial discretion which is founded on objective reasoning and not on individual perception. (xiii) The State or a public body or an entity representing a collective cause should be given some acceptable latitude.” Looking to the inordinate delay of more than six years, in view of the judgment delivered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, in our opinion, this is not a fit case where delay in filing the appeal be condoned. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in CK Lokesh Vs. PS Panduranga Naidu, (1996) 11 SCC 353. However, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant is distinguishable on facts. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay IA 1974/12 is hereby rejected and the writ appeal filed by the appellant is also dismissed.