Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 797 (PNJ)

Raj Kumar v. Sapna

2024-05-06

SUMEET GOEL

body2024
JUDGMENT Sumeet Goel, J. (Oral) CRM-19877-2024 The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant-husband for condonation of 71 days delay in filing the accompanying revision petition. The main revision petition has been filed impugning the judgment dated 16.11.2023 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ludhiana, whereby the applicant-husband/petitioner (herein), who was proceeded against ex-parte, was directed to pay Rs. 8,000/- per month to respondent No.1-wife (herein), as maintenance from the date of filing of the petition and it is further directed that respondent-wife should be entitled to get maintenance increased at a flat rate of 5% per annum from the date of passing of the order. However, no maintenance was granted to respondent No.2 (minor child) as he is being maintained by applicant-petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner, while seeking grant of prayer for condonation of delay of 71 days, has argued that the delay has occurred as the applicant is a poor person and on account of paucity of funds, the applicant could not prefer the present revision petition. Thereupon, after arranging the necessary funds and documents, the instant revision petition had been filed. Learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner has further argued that the circumstances of the case indicate that the delay in filing the revision petition is neither intentional nor deliberate & hence delay deserves to be condoned. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner and have perused the paper-book. 4. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment of this Court passed in CRR(F)-1844-2023 titled as Deepak v. Noori and another, decided on 29.02.2024; relevant whereof reads as under:- "8. As a sequel to above-said discussion, the following principles of law emerge: (I) A liberal approach, undoubtedly, ought to be accorded to a plea for condonation of delay made under section 5 of The Limitation Act, 1963 so as to further the cause of substantial justice. The concept of substantial justice essentially includes in itself the desirability of adjudication of a claim of the litigant on merits thereof rather than rejection of the same, at the threshold, on account of being barred by limitation. However, adoption of such liberal approach cannot be stretched to mean that a prayer (for condonation of delay) ought to be granted sans reasonable explanation therefor. However, adoption of such liberal approach cannot be stretched to mean that a prayer (for condonation of delay) ought to be granted sans reasonable explanation therefor. An applicant (seeking condonation of delay) has to bring forward cogent, credible and lucid reason(s) to substantiate such a plea. In case such reason(s) is not scrutable, a Court would well be within its discretion to decline such plea (for condonation of delay). In other words, inexplicable delay ought not to be condoned. (II) A Court ought to grant an application seeking condonation of delay when no negligence, inaction or want of bona fide is imputable to such applicant and/or such delay has occurred on account of circumstances beyond reasonable control of such applicant. (III) It is not the length of delay (sought to be condoned) but explanation thereof which is relevant for consideration by a Court. (IV) Law of limitation does not require an applicant (seeking condonation of delay) to furnish an exhaustive explanation on 'day to-day basis' for such delay. A Court while dealing with a plea for condonation of delay need not undertake such a pedantic approach. (V) In appropriate cases, a Court may consider imposing costs while granting an application for condonation of delay. However, the quantification of costs so imposed, must reflect the same being commensurate to the lis in issue as also attending circumstances therein. (VI) The factum; of non-applicant(s) or even strangers having altered their position(s) relying upon the applicant not having filed an appeal/revision etc. within stipulated time and resultant effects thereof; will indubitably be a pertinent factor for consideration of a plea for condonation of delay. (VII) A plea for condonation of delay by the State as also its instrumentalities has to be accorded a more liberal approach since the machinery involved in their working is impersonal in nature & hidden factors working therein cannot be given a complete amiss. (VIII) The discretion of a Court, while considering a plea for condonation of delay, will be exercised in view of peculiar facts/circumstances of an individual case. It is neither prudent nor feasible to fix any exhaustive guidelines for exercising such judicial discretion. On the contrary, it would be perilous to lay down such general criteria for governing such discretion. (VIII) The discretion of a Court, while considering a plea for condonation of delay, will be exercised in view of peculiar facts/circumstances of an individual case. It is neither prudent nor feasible to fix any exhaustive guidelines for exercising such judicial discretion. On the contrary, it would be perilous to lay down such general criteria for governing such discretion. Needless to emphasize that exercise of such judicial discretion/power ought to be within the four corners of well settled principles of justice, good conscience and fair play." 5. More recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by L.Rs & Ors. v. The Special Deputy Collector (LA), Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 286 , has observed as under: "26. On a harmonious consideration of the provisions of the law, as aforesaid, and the law laid down by this Court, it is evident that: xxx xxx xxx xxx vii) Merits of the case are not required to be considered in condoning the delay; and (viii) Delay condonation application has to be decided on the parameters laid down for condoning the delay and condoning the delay for the reason that the conditions have been imposed, tantamounts to disregarding the statutory provision." 6. Condonation of delay of 71 days in filing the accompanying revision petition is sought for on the following relevant averments: "2. That the present Revision has been filed with delay days. In fact, the appellant is Poor person, facing paucity of funds, hence is not able to prefer the revision in times and now after arranging the funds from near relatives is filing the present Revision. Hence delay of 71 days has been occurred. 3. That the delay is not intentional but due to facts and circumstances mentioned above which is beyond the control of the petitioner and petitioner humbly prays for condonation of delays in filing present revision. 4. That the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and grave injustice if the delay is not condoned." 7. A perusal of the above-said averments clearly show that no reasonable or plausible explanation has been furnished by the applicant (herein) to condone the delay of 71 days in filing the accompanying revision petition. Moreover, while going through the impugned order, it transpired that the petitioner-husband (herein) was not pursuing his case diligently. A perusal of the above-said averments clearly show that no reasonable or plausible explanation has been furnished by the applicant (herein) to condone the delay of 71 days in filing the accompanying revision petition. Moreover, while going through the impugned order, it transpired that the petitioner-husband (herein) was not pursuing his case diligently. Initially, he entered appearance through counsel and filed written statement and took preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and locus standi of the respondent-wife in filing the instant petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, when the case was fixed for cross-examination of both the PW's, the applicant-petitioner (husband) absented himself and was, thus, proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 11.09.2023. The aforesaid conduct of the applicant-petitioner shows that he is not interested in prosecuting his remedy cautiously and demonstrates rank negligence. Furthermore, prima facie it appears that a deliberate attempt has been made on part of the applicant-petitioner to delay the proceedings in order to avoid his liability. Apart from the above; the instant application, apart from being bereft of any specific details/particulars which may reflect bona fide on part of the applicant in pursuing his case, rather reflects a deliberate attempt on part of the applicant-husband to somehow delay the proceedings and avoid the payment of maintenance to respondent-wife. No cause much less sufficient cause, as required in law, has been shown to condone the delay of 71 days in filing the accompanying revision petition. The delay is both inordinate and inexplicable. It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the Court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be un-condonable due to a want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases, delay of a very long range can be condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory. The explanation for the delay contained in the application seeking condonation of delay is wholly unsatisfactory and can hardly be said to be a reasonable, satisfactory or even a proper explanation for seeking condonation of delay. Hence the application seeking condonation of delay of 71 days in filing the accompanying revision petition merits dismissal. Decision 8. The explanation for the delay contained in the application seeking condonation of delay is wholly unsatisfactory and can hardly be said to be a reasonable, satisfactory or even a proper explanation for seeking condonation of delay. Hence the application seeking condonation of delay of 71 days in filing the accompanying revision petition merits dismissal. Decision 8. The application (CRM-19877-2024) seeking condonation of 71 days in filing the revision petition is dismissed. Since the application seeking condonation of delay has been dismissed, the main revision petition stands dismissed as well accordingly. 9. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.