Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 45 (JK)

Divakar Rai v. J&K Special Tribunal

2020-02-05

SANJAY KUMAR GUPTA

body2020
JUDGMENT CONOW No. 32/2013 1. The applicant/ petitioner has filed the instant application seeking condonation of 4744 days delay in filing the Review Petition against the judgment dated 07.11.2000 passed by this Court in OWP No. 802/1993, which was disposed of by remanding the matter to the Commissioner, Agrarian Reforms, Kathua/ Jammu instead of Tehsildar Agrarian, Kathua. 2. In the application, it has been stated that the judgment in question was passed on 07.11.2000 and thereafter the matter was before the Letters Patent Bench upto 12.04.2001 and thereafter the matter was not taken up by the Appellate Authority at Kathua despite repeated requests of the applicants and ultimately the respondent Nos. 2 to 39/ applicants preferred a contempt petition bearing No. COA((OW) No. 19/2013 and it was on 19.02.2013 the notice was issued to the appellate authority and this activated the matter as the proceedings kicked start before the appellate authority on 26.02.2013 and the matter was fixed for 12.12.2013. 3. It is stated that it is before the Appellate authority at Kathua, that the counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 39 noticed a legal error in the judgment in question and apprised the applicants that in terms of Section 21 of Agrarian Reforms Act , the Commissioner Agrarian Reforms is the Appellate Authority and the matter has been erroneously remanded to the Appellate Authority instead of Tehsildar Agrarian, Kathua. 4. It is further stated that there is no doubt as to the delay of 4744 days in filing the instant review petition but in order to do justice to both the sides the instant condonation application is required to be allowed so that substantial justice is done to the parties. The error in the judgment is apparent and thus the instant application needs consideration of this Honble Court. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused documents annexed therein. 6. During course of the arguments, learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner in support of his case has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in case titled ' State of Nagaland vs Lipok AO and others', reported in AIR 2005 SC 2191 . 7. From the perusal of impugned judgement, it is evident that same has been passed on 07.11.2000, the applicant has applied for issuance of certified copy of order impugned dated 07.11.2000 on 06.12.2013 after approximately about 13 years and filed present petition for review. 7. From the perusal of impugned judgement, it is evident that same has been passed on 07.11.2000, the applicant has applied for issuance of certified copy of order impugned dated 07.11.2000 on 06.12.2013 after approximately about 13 years and filed present petition for review. Therefore total delay in filing the review petition is 4744 days from the date of judgment. Review has to be filed within 30 days from the date of order or judgement. 8. Rules of limitation are prima facie rules of procedure and do not create any rights in favour of any person nor do they define or create cause of action but simply prescribe that the remedy could be exercised only upto a certain period and not beyond it. The expression sufficient cause is not to be liberally construed to such an extent that the rules are rendered inconsequential and reduced to a dead provision on the Statute book. The Rules of Limitation are not superfluous or vestigial but are to be interpreted in a meaningful manner so as to save the system from anarchy. Why should there be a time frame prescribed under law for a legal remedy? Law of Limitation fixes a life span for every legal remedy. Time is precious and the wasted time would never resist. So, a life span must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to an unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. It is enshrined in maxim, 'Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium (It is for the general welfare that there should be an end to litigation). Every legal remedy must be kept alive for legislatively fixed period of time. Although certain latitude must be given in filing review but that does not mean that law of limitation in filing such petition shall become redundant or superfluous. Law is also clear that each day after limitation time, is required to be explained by cogent means. It cannot be set aside on flimsy grounds and at the wish of applicant who remained all along negligent. 9. In the present case, so far as the averments made in the application are concerned, it may be said that there is a gross negligence on the part of the applicant as no valid ground has been given for the reason as to why a delay of 4744 days had occurred. 9. In the present case, so far as the averments made in the application are concerned, it may be said that there is a gross negligence on the part of the applicant as no valid ground has been given for the reason as to why a delay of 4744 days had occurred. There is so much of gross negligence on the part of the applicant that even the word 'sufficient cause' has not been used by him in the application. After the expiry of period of limitation a vested right is created in a party which cannot be defeated easily. The delay of 4744 days (approximately thirteen years) has occurred and applicant has miserably failed to satisfy the court with regard to delay in filing the review petition. The grounds mentioned are self created, in order to create illusion of facts that applicant has sufficient grounds for condoning the delay. No sufficient grounds have been shown for condoning the delay. 10. Learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner has relied upon the judgment titled State of Nagaland vs Lipok AO and others (supra), is not applicable in the present set of circumstances because in that judgment there was delay of 57 days, but in the present case, there is a delay of 4744 days. Applicant has miserably failed to satisfy the court with regard to delay in filing the application seeking review. Court cannot come to rescue of a litigant who always remained careless. No sufficient grounds have been shown for condoning the delay. 11. Accordingly, the application seeking condonation of delay is dismissed and resultantly the review petition is also dismissed as barred by time.