Court denies condonation, citing no entitlement to Limitation Act Section 14 benefit. Appeal dismissed as time-barred.

The court rejected the application for condonation of delay, concluding that the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The delay in filing the appeal was not sufficiently explained, leading to the dismissal of the appeal as barred by limitation.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing the appeal.
2. Application of Section 14 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay.
3. Jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court.
4. Bonafide belief and due diligence in pursuing remedies.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The registry reported the appeal to be beyond time by 697 days. The appellant sought condonation of this delay, citing the pursuit of a writ petition in the Delhi High Court as the reason for the delay.

2. Application of Section 14 of the Limitation Act for Condonation of Delay:
The appellant argued that the delay should be condoned under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, as they were pursuing the remedy in the Delhi High Court in good faith. The court noted that Section 14 is intended to provide relief against the bar of limitation in cases of mistaken remedy or selection of a wrong forum. The Supreme Court's interpretation in Consolidated Engineering Enterprises v. Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department & Ors. was cited, emphasizing that the bar of limitation should not affect a person honestly doing their best to get their case tried on merits.

3. Jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court:
The appellant initially filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court, which was later converted into an appeal. The Delhi High Court, however, raised an issue of territorial jurisdiction, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Ambica Industries v. Commissioner of Income Tax, which held that appellate jurisdiction depends on the location of the authority that passed the original order. The Delhi High Court eventually dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, allowing the appellant to approach the jurisdictional High Court.

4. Bonafide Belief and Due Diligence in Pursuing Remedies:
The court scrutinized whether the appellant was genuinely pursuing the remedy in the wrong forum with due diligence. It was noted that despite being aware of the jurisdictional issue by September 22, 2010, the appellant continued to pursue the appeal in the Delhi High Court for over a year without contesting the jurisdiction. The court found that the appellant's actions post-September 22, 2010, were not in bonafide pursuit of litigious activity. The appellant's delay in filing the appeal in the correct jurisdictional court was not sufficiently explained, and the court observed that the appellant's continued pursuit in the Delhi High Court was not in good faith.

Conclusion:
The application for condonation of delay was rejected. The court concluded that the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, as the delay was not sufficiently explained, and the appeal was consequently dismissed as barred by limitation.

---