Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1300 (RAJ)

Regional Passport Officer, Jaipur, (Raj. ) v. Manpreet Singh S/o. Shri Sukhdev Singh

2023-07-05

MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

body2023
ORDER : 1. This civil second appeal, which is time barred by 913 days, is accompanied with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 2. It is stated in the application that delay occurred on account of three successive spells of pandemic Covid-19 and the Hon’ble Apex Court of India has, in Miscellaneous Application No.665/2021 in SMW(C) No.3/2020, provided for exclusion of the period consumed in the pandemic situation for the purpose of computation of the period of limitation for filing of the proceedings. 3. Reiterating the averments made in the application, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the delay occurred in filing the appeal on account of Covid-19 situation. She, therefore, prays for condonation of delay. 4. Heard. Considered. 5. The reasons assigned in the application are not only far from satisfactory but are wholly misconceived and misplaced. The Covid-19 situation was over much before filing of the appeal by the appellants. Although, the appellants have relied upon the order of the Supreme Court of India in Miscellaneous Application No.665/2021 in SMW(C) No.3/2020 dated 23.09.2021; but, thereafter, on the application No.21/2022, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has, vide its order dated 10.01.2022, held as under:- “I. The order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent orders dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings.” II. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 03.10.2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 01.03.2022. III. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. IV. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. IV. It is further clarified that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings. 6. Thus, the period in between the 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 has been excluded for the purpose of computation of period of limitation. It further provides that if the limitation starts prior to 15.03.2020, the appellant/applicant would be entitled for remaining period of limitation w.e.f. 01.03.2022. In the present case, the second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 18.02.2020 has been preferred on 17.11.2022 but, the application is bereft of any reason as to why the appeal was not preferred within limitation after 28.02.2022. True it is that some leniency has to be extended by the Courts while dealing with the cases of delay on the part of Government or its Agencies; but, in its garb, the salutary object and public policy behind the Limitation Act cannot be set-at-naught. 7. A Division Bench of this Court has, in case of the Managing Committee, Gyanjyoti Senior Secondary School Vs. Tejpal Singh Tyagi & Ors., DB Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1447/2011 (L) & DB Civil Misc. Stay Application No.11946/2011 vide its order dated 19.04.2012, held as under:- “6. It is relevant to record that the Hon'ble Apex Court in plethora of cases has consistently deprecated the practice of filing writ petitions and appeals after inordinate delay of the expiry of period of limitation. 7. Stay Application No.11946/2011 vide its order dated 19.04.2012, held as under:- “6. It is relevant to record that the Hon'ble Apex Court in plethora of cases has consistently deprecated the practice of filing writ petitions and appeals after inordinate delay of the expiry of period of limitation. 7. In the case of Postmaster General and others vs. Living Media India Limited and Another reported in MANU/SC/0132/2012 : (2012) 3 SCC 563 , the Hon'ble Apex Court hammered the appellant-Government Department, who filed the Special Leave to Appeal after an inordinate delay of 427 days of the expiry of period of limitation and posed a burning question as to why should the delay be condoned mechanically because the Government or a wing of Government was a party before them? The Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the Government Department cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government. Since the Government Department miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reason sufficient to condone a huge delay, the Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed the appeal in limine merely on the ground of delay. The Hon'ble Apex Court relied upon some other judgments of its own court, which are cited hereto. 8. In the case of CWT vs. Amateur Riders Club reported in 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 603, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed thus: 3...... Having regard to the law of limitation which binds everybody, we cannot find any way of granting relief. It is true that the Government should not be treated as any other private litigant as, indeed, in the case of the former the decisions to present and prosecute appeals are not individual but are institutional decisions necessarily bogged down by the proverbial red tape. But there are limits to this also. Even with all this latitude, the explanation offered for the delay in this case merely serves to aggravate the attitude of indifference of the Revenue in protecting its common interests. The affidavit is again one of the stereotyped affidavits making it susceptible to the criticism that the Revenue does not seem to attach any importance to the need for promptitude even where it affects its own interest. 9. In the case of Pundlik Jalam Paul vs. Jalgaon Medium Project reported in MANU/SC/4694/2008 : (2008) 17 SCC 448 , the Hon'ble Apex court held as under: 17.... 9. In the case of Pundlik Jalam Paul vs. Jalgaon Medium Project reported in MANU/SC/4694/2008 : (2008) 17 SCC 448 , the Hon'ble Apex court held as under: 17.... The evidence on record suggests neglect of its own right for long time in preferring appeals. The court cannot enquire into belated and stale claims on the ground of equity. Delay defeats equity. The Court helps those who are vigilant and 'do not slumber over their rights'. 10. After referring various earlier decisions, taking very lenient view in condoning the delay, particularly on the part of the Government and Government undertaking, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under: 29. It needs no restatement at our hands that the object for fixing time-limit for litigation is based on public policy fixing a life span for legal remedy for the purpose of general welfare. They are meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but avail their legal remedies promptly. Salmond in his Jurisprudence states that the laws come to the assistance of the vigilant and not of the sleepy. 11. Similarly in the case of S.S. Balu and Another vs. State of Kerala and Others reported in MANU/SC/0041/2009 : (2009) 2 SCC 479 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the delay defeats equity and relief can be denied on the ground of delay alone even though relief is granted to other similarly situated person who approached the court in time. The Hon'ble Apex Court further observed, "it is now a trite law that where the writ petitioner approaches the High Court after a long delay, relief prayed for, may be denied to them on the ground of delay and laches irrespective of the fact that they are similarly situated to the other candidates, who obtained the benefit of the judgment. 12. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it is revealed that the cause shown in filing the instant appeal after 703 days of the expiry of period of limitation in the application does not seem to be plausible and acceptable. 12. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it is revealed that the cause shown in filing the instant appeal after 703 days of the expiry of period of limitation in the application does not seem to be plausible and acceptable. E Contra, the explanation furnished in filing the appeal after an inordinate delay of 703 days is not found to be based on any cogent and acceptable reasoning, Hence, on account of there being insufficient cause for filing the appeal with inordinate delay of 703 days of expiry of the period of limitation, which is found not to have been properly explained, we find no merit in I.A. No. 10383 dated 6.4.2011 filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act and the same stands dismissed accordingly. On account of dismissal of I.A. No. 10383 dated 6.4.2011, the instant appeal also deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay alone.” 8. Their Lordships have, in case of Government of Maharashtra (Water Resources Department) V. M/s. Borse Brothers Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd., 2021 SCC Online SC 233, held as under:- “65. That apart, on the facts of this appeal, there is a long delay of 75 days beyond the period of 60 days provided by the Commercial Courts Act. Despite the fact that a certified copy of the District Court’s judgment was obtained by the respondent on 27.04.2019, the appeal was filed only on 09.09.2019, the explanation for delay being: “2. That, the certified copy of the order dated 01/04/2013 was received by the appellant on 27/04/2019. Thereafter the matter was placed before the CGM purchase MPPKVVCL for the compliance of the order. The same was then sent to the law officer, MPPKVVCL for opinion. 3. That after taking opinion for appeal, and approval of the concerned authorities, the officer-in-charge was appointed vide order dated 23/07/2019. 4. That, thereafter due to bulky records of the case and for procurement of the necessary documents some delay has been caused however, the appeal has been prepared and filed to pursuant to the same and further delay. 5. That due to the aforesaid procedural approval and since the appellant is a public entity formed under the Energy department of the State Government, the delay caused in filing the appeal is bonafide and which deserve[s] to be condoned.” 9. 5. That due to the aforesaid procedural approval and since the appellant is a public entity formed under the Energy department of the State Government, the delay caused in filing the appeal is bonafide and which deserve[s] to be condoned.” 9. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was not satisfied with the cause shown on the above lines and it was held as below : 66. This explanation falls woefully short of making out any sufficient cause. This appeal is therefore allowed and the condonation of delay is set aside on this score also.” 10. In the aforesaid factual and legal backdrop, the inordinate delay in filing the appeal does not merit condonation. However, in the interest of justice, learned counsel for the appellants has been heard on merit of the second appeal which is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 18.02.2020 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.5, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (for brevity “the learned appellate Court”) in Civil Regular Appeal No.316/2019 whereby, while dismissing the appeal, the judgment dated 07.02.2018 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (East), Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as “the learned trial Court”) decreeing the Civil Original Suit No.62/2015 filed by the respondent/plaintiff for declaration and mandatory injunction, has been upheld. 11. The plaintiff filed the suit seeking correction in his date of birth in the passport which was decreed by the learned trial Court appreciating the evidence on record especially his 10th Class Marks-sheet and his Aadhar Card and a direction was issued to correct the date of birth in his passport in commensurate with his date of birth in the 10th Class marks-sheet and the Aadhar Card. As a matter of fact, no evidence was led on behalf of the appellants/defendants for which no explanation has been offered. The finding has been upheld by the learned appellate Court re-appreciating the evidence on record. Learned counsel for the appellants has miserably failed either to show any illegality, infirmity, perversity or jurisdictional error in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the learned Courts based on evidence on record or any justification for preferring this civil second appeal which is found to be wholly misconceived. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants has miserably failed either to show any illegality, infirmity, perversity or jurisdictional error in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the learned Courts based on evidence on record or any justification for preferring this civil second appeal which is found to be wholly misconceived. 12. In view thereof, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as also the civil second appeal are dismissed with cost of Rs.25,000/-which shall be deposited by the appellants within a period of eight weeks from today with the Litigants Welfare Fund. 13. Pending application also stands dismissed.