Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 457 (ALL)

Kanhaiya Lal v. Lala Ram

2020-02-11

AJAY BHANOT

body2020
JUDGMENT : 1. By the order dated 27.11.2019 passed by the learned revisonal court/District Judge, Jalaun at Orai in Misc. Suit No.417 of 2018 (Kanhaiya Lal Vs. Ram Krishna and others), the application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been rejected. 2. Admittedly, the delay is only of a period of 15 days. The law is well settled. The courts have to administer substantive justice and not shut the doors of justice to parties on mere technicalities. 3. There is authority which holds that while considering the application for delay condonation, the courts should adopt a liberal approach and eschew a pedantic approach. 4. The learned appellate court misdirected itself in law by rejecting the application for delay condonation even though the delay of 15 days. 5. This Court finds that the cause for delay of 15 days in instituting the revision is sufficient. 6. The purpose of laws of limitation is to ensure that the parties may remain vigilant to their cause and institute their claim in good time. The mandate of laws of limitation is not to shut the doors of justice to the parties or decline adjudication on merits. On the contrary it should be the constant endeavour the courts of law to adjudicate issues on merits and dispense justice on a substantive basis. 7. There is good authority to hold that the courts should adopt a liberal, pragmatic and a justice oriented approach matters of condonation of delay. Equally the courts should avoid a pedantic view and eschew servitude to procedure in such matters. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition V. Mst. Kati Ji and others, reported at 1987 (13) ALR 306 (SC) held as follows: "The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting section 5 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on "merits". The expression "sufficient cause" employed by the Legislature is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life-purpose of the existence of the institution of Courts. It is common knowledge that this Court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this Court. It is common knowledge that this Court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this Court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other Courts in the hierarchy." 9. And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that: 1. Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this; when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would he decided on merit after hearing the parties. 3. "Every" day's delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay ? The doctrine must be applied in a rational, common sense and pragmatic manner. 4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side can not claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. 5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by restoring to delay. In fact, he runs a serious risk. 6. It must be grapped that the judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so." 10. This view was fortified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan Vs M. Krishnamurthy reported at 1998 (7) SCC 123 . The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted here under:- "The primary function of a court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice. Time limit fixed for approaching the court in different situations is not because on the expiry of such time a bad cause would transform into a good cause. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. Time limit fixed for approaching the court in different situations is not because on the expiry of such time a bad cause would transform into a good cause. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of 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. Law of limitation fixes a life-span for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and the wasted time would never revisit. During efflux of time newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a life span must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. Law of limitation is thus founded on public policy." 11. In Smt. Prabha V. Ram Prakash Kalra reported in 1987 (Suppl.) SCC 338, the Supreme Court took the view that the Court should not adopt an injustice-oriented approach in rejecting the application for condonation of delay. 12. In Vedabai @ Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil V. Shantaram Baburao Patil and others reported at 2001 (44) ALR 577 (SC), the Apex Court made a distinction in delay and inordinate delay observing as under: "In exercising discretion under section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case the consideration of prejudice to the otherwise will be a relevant factor so the case calls for a more cautious approach...." 13. In New India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Smt. Shanti Misra reported at AIR 1976 SC 237 , Hon'ble Court held that discretion given by section 5 should not be defined or crystallized so as to convert a discretionary matter into a rigid rule of law. The express "sufficient cause" should receive a liberal construction. 14. In New India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Smt. Shanti Misra reported at AIR 1976 SC 237 , Hon'ble Court held that discretion given by section 5 should not be defined or crystallized so as to convert a discretionary matter into a rigid rule of law. The express "sufficient cause" should receive a liberal construction. 14. In Shakuntala Devi Jain V. Kuntal Kumari reported at AIR 1969 SC 575 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that unless want of bona fides of such inaction or negligence as would deprive a party of the protection of section 5 is proved, the application must not be thrown out or any delay can not be refused to be condoned. 15. In O.P. Kathpalia V. Lakhmir Singh reported in AIR 1984 SC 1744 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if the refusal to condone the delay results in grave miscarriage of justice, it would be a ground to condone the delay. 16. Further Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Haribhai Lakhmanbhai Seedhav Vs. State of Gujarat and to others, reported at 2009 (27) LCD 1645 has also held that the Court should not reject appeal/revision on the ground of delay and the same should be decided on merit. 17. In view of the above, the order dated 27.11.2019 passed by the learned revisional court/learned District Judge, Jalaun at Orai in Misc. Suit No.417 of 2018 (Kanhaiya Lal Vs. Ram Krishna and others) is set aside. 18. The delay is liable to be condoned and is condoned. The delay condonation application is allowed. 19. The learned revisional court/District Judge, Jalaun at Orai is directed to decide the revision within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The petition is finally allowed.