TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (7) TMI 1019
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Appeal No. 341 of 2008 filed by the Respondent was dismissed by the High Court vide judgment dated 11.12.2008. 3. After almost four years of the passing of ex-parte decree by the trial Court and one year and eight months of the dismissal of CMA No. 341 of 2008 by the High Court, the Respondent filed an appeal under Section 96 Code of Civil Procedure. He also filed an application for condonation of 1236 days delay by stating that he handed over the papers to the counsel on 10.1.2009 for the purpose of preparing the grounds of appeal but the certified copies of the documents were misplaced by the office of the Advocate and the same could not be traced despite best efforts and further that on 2.3.2010, the counsel discovered that the documents had been inadvertently tagged with the record of A.S. No. 200/2001. 4. Learned Single Judge of the High Court accepted the Respondent's explanation and condoned the delay by observing that there were some latches on the part of the counsel but the Respondent cannot be penalised for the same. 5. We have heard Learned Counsel for the parties. The Limitation Act, 1963 has not been enacted with the object of destroying the rights of the part....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hen substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. (5) There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. (6) It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so." Making a justice-oriented approach from this perspective, there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay in the institution of the appeal. The fact that it was the 'State' which was seeking condonation and not a private party was altogether irrelevant. The doctrine of equality before law demands that all litigants, including the State as a litigant. are accorded the same treatment and the law is administered in an even-handed manner. There is no warrant for according a step-motherly treatment when the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. The law of limitation fixes a lifespan for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and wasted time would never revisit. During the efflux of time, newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a lifespan must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time." 9. In P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala, 1997 7 SCC 556 this Court reversed the order passed by the High Court for condonation of 565 days delay in filing of an appeal by the State against the decree passed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted for hearing. During the hearing of the matter, it emerged that due to inadvertent delay from the date of dismissal of C.M.A. to filing of the present appeal is not properly explained. At our request for filing a better affidavit, explaining the delay, the matter was adjourned which is neither intentional nor wanton. 4. I submit that after dismissal of the C.M.A., my Counsel asked me to obtain certified copies of exhibits marked in the suit under appeal i.e., Settlement of Summons, Show Cause Notice, Market Value Certificate etc. to enable us to file the appeal. On 20.12.2008, I applied for the certified copies of the above documents before the Hon'ble Trial Court. On 9.1.2009 the same were furnished to me. On 10.1.2009, I handed over the same to my Counsel with instructions to prepare the appeal grounds. However, the certified copies of the document were misplaced by the office of my counsel and the same could not be traced out inspite of their best efforts." On 2.3.2010, while my Counsel for preparing for arguments in A.S. No. 200/2001, he noticed that the certified copies of the documents were inadvertently tagged to it. On 3.3.2010, my Counsel prepared the draft appea....