Court dismisses revision due to 1782-day delay, emphasizing importance of bona fides and reasonableness.

The court dismissed the delay condonation application and subsequently the revision due to an inordinate delay of 1782 days in filing the revision. The court applied principles from previous judgments emphasizing the importance of bona fides, reasonableness, and party conduct in seeking delay condonation. Lack of satisfactory explanation for the delay led to the dismissal, highlighting that while a liberal approach is encouraged, condonation cannot be granted without a sufficient cause. The court's decision was based on established legal precedents regarding delay condonation.

---

---

Issues: Delay in filing revision, Delay condonation application, Principles for condoning delay

Issue 1: Delay in filing revision
The judgment addresses a delay of 1782 days in filing a revision. The delay condonation application was filed along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay. The affidavit mentioned that the Department received the impugned judgment on a specific date and initiated steps for obtaining permission for filing the revision. However, procedural formalities and translation of documents caused delays. The Department's efforts to contact the Chief Standing Counsel and allocate the case to the State Counsel were also highlighted in the affidavit. The reasons cited for the delay included procedural delays and the unavailability of an authorized translator, leading to the delay in filing the revision.

Issue 2: Delay Condonation Application
The judgment refers to the delay condonation application (CLMA no. 1211 of 2017) filed to condone the delay in filing the revision. The affidavit accompanying the application explained the sequence of events that led to the delay, including the receipt of the impugned judgment, initiation of steps for obtaining permission, and the challenges faced in translating documents. The application sought condonation of the delay based on the reasons mentioned in the affidavit. However, the court analyzed the application in light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in previous judgments regarding condonation of delay.

Issue 3: Principles for Condoning Delay
The judgment extensively cites the principles established by the Hon'ble Apex Court in cases like Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and Brijesh Kumar vs. State of Haryana. These principles emphasize the importance of bona fides, reasonableness, and the conduct of the party seeking condonation of delay. The court highlighted that lack of bona fides, inaction, or negligence could deprive a party of the protection under the Limitation Act. The court noted that while a liberal approach is encouraged, delay condonation cannot be granted without a sufficient cause and a proper explanation for the delay. The judgment concluded that the delay in this case was inordinate and not satisfactorily explained as per the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, leading to the dismissal of the delay condonation application and subsequently, the revision itself.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the issues of delay in filing the revision, the delay condonation application, and the principles governing the condonation of delay as established by previous legal precedents.

---