Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1420 (RAJ)

State Of Rajasthan v. Kashi Nath S/o RamLal

2023-07-24

MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

body2023
JUDGMENT : 1. This civil second appeal, which is reported to be time barred by 977 days, is accompanied with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 2. Reiterating the averments made in the application, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the delay occurred in taking decision of appeal at various levels in the Government. He, therefore, prays that the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act be allowed and the delay in preferring the appeal be condoned. 3. Heard. Considered. 4. The reason assigned in the application seeking condonation of huge delay of 977 days is nothing but retoric of usual delay in movement of file from one table to another. It is trite law that one who approaches the Court of law, must show that he was vigilant of his rights. An indolent person is not entitled for condonation of delay in approaching the Court. Lack of promptitude and lethargy in movement of file in filing the appeal/petition by the State/its instrumentality has been deprecated by their Lordships in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Bherulal: 2020 SCC Online SC 849 wherein, it was observed as under: "3. No doubt, some leeway is given for the Government inefficiencies but the sad part is that the authorities keep on relying on judicial pronouncements for a period of time when technology had not advanced and a greater leeway was given to the Government (Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 107 ). This position is more than elucidated by the judgment of this Court in Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. v. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. (2012) 3 SCC 563 where the Court observed as under: “12) It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government. 13) In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and Instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural redtape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay.” Eight years hence the judgment is still unheeded!" 5. In the case of Government of Maharashtra (Water Resources Department) Vs. M/s. Borse Brothers Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd.: 2021 SCC Online 233, it was 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. In the case of Government of Maharashtra (Water Resources Department) Vs. M/s. Borse Brothers Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd.: 2021 SCC Online 233, it was 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." 6. 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." 7. In the aforesaid legal backdrop, recording that the reasons assigned in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act are far from satisfactory, the inordinate delay of 977 days does not deserve to be condoned. 8. This appeal is therefore allowed and the condonation of delay is set aside on this score also." 7. In the aforesaid legal backdrop, recording that the reasons assigned in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act are far from satisfactory, the inordinate delay of 977 days does not deserve to be condoned. 8. However, in the interest of justice, the learned counsel for the appellants has been heard on merits on the civil second appeal which has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 30.05.2015 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.2, Bharatpur (for brevity, “the learned Appellate court”) in Regular Civil Appeal No.15/2005 whereby, while dismissing the appeal, the judgment dated 07.02.2005 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.3, Bharatpur decreeing the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff (for brevity, “the plaintiff”) for permanent injunction, has been affirmed. 9. The relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the appellants/defendants (for brevity, “the defendants”) stating therein that the subject land was purchased by him from the Panchayat Samiti, Kumher in the year 1976 in an open auction. It was averred that the Nagar Palika, Kumher raised an objection against his ownership whereupon, he field a suit which was decreed by the learned Upper Munsif No.1, Bharatpur vide judgment dated 24.09.1989. 10. Alleging that the defendants were trying to interfere with his use and occupation of the subject land, the decree as aforesaid was prayed for. 11. The defendants in their joint written statement, denying the averments made in the plaint, submitted that the subject plot is under their ownership and possession. 12. On the basis of pleading of the respective parties, the learned trial Court framed five issues. After recording of the plaintiff’s evidence as no evidence was led by the defendants, the learned trial Court decreed the suit vide its judgment dated 07.02.2005. The civil first appeal preferred thereagainst by the defendants has been dismissed by the learned Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 30.05.2015. 13. Assailing the impugned judgment and decree, learned counsel for the defendants submits that while decreeing the suit, the learned Courts did not appreciate that the plaintiff could not establish his possession over the subject property. He, therefore, prays that the civil second appeal be allowed, the judgment and decree dated 30.05.2015 be quashed and set aside 14. Heard. 13. Assailing the impugned judgment and decree, learned counsel for the defendants submits that while decreeing the suit, the learned Courts did not appreciate that the plaintiff could not establish his possession over the subject property. He, therefore, prays that the civil second appeal be allowed, the judgment and decree dated 30.05.2015 be quashed and set aside 14. Heard. Considered. 15. The learned trial Court has, while deciding the issues no.1 & 2 pertaining to ownership of the Panchayat Samiti, Kumher over the subject property, its purchase by the plaintiff in the year, 1976 in an open auction and his possession since then, held that although, it could not be established that the subject land belonged to Panchayat Samiti, Kumher; but, it was held that after its purchase in the open auction in the year 1976, the plaintiff was in its possession and his earlier suit No.56/1980 filed against Nagar Palika, Kumher, qua the self same property, was decreed in his favour vide judgment and decree dated 24.09.1989 It was further held that the defendants did not lead any evidence to substantiate their averment that they were in its ownership and possession. The findings have been affirmed by the learned Appellate court reappreciating the evidence on record. Learned counsel for the defendants failed to satisfy this Court that the aforesaid concurrent findings of facts recorded by the learned Courts suffer from any illegality, infirmity or perversity warranting interference of this Court under Section 100 CPC. 16. Accordingly, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as also the civil second appeal are dismissed being devoid of merit.