2022 (2) TMI 1265

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ectricity company run by the government and accordingly, it has to follow due procedure for opinion and approval from the different departments concerned, in which some time is elapsed and in the circumstance, such a delay has been occurred in presenting the appeal before the first appellate Court. Further, he submitted that the delay is of only 132 days, and accordingly, learned Judge ought to have considered the delay condonation application and would have condoned the delay in preferring the appeal, moresowhen, there was no reply/written objections filed by the other side. 4.1 The learned advocate for the petitioners has further submitted that another count on which such application for condonation of delay was rejected is non-joinder of necessary parties in the said application inasmuch as, in the said application, original plaintiff Nos. 6 and 7 were not joined, however, he submitted that the suit was filed through the legal heirs of the deceased and the learned Judge has failed to appreciate such a factual position. 4.2 Making above submissions, it is urged that this writ petition may be allowed in the interest of justice and delay caused in preferring the appeal, as afores....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....woke up one fine morning with an idea to challenge the said decree by preferring an appeal. The above chronology is suggestive of the fact that immediately after the judgment and decree was pronounced, certified copy thereof was applied for and after getting the same, procedure for necessary approval was started, without any further delay. 5.3 It is trite that in a delay application, sufficient cause is the paramount consideration and if sufficient cause is shown, the Court should generally condone the delay. However, if the sufficient cause is imbibed with the laxity on the part of the delayer despite due knowledge, then Court should restrain itself from encouraging such practice and condone the delay. 5.4 Having heard and considering the material on record, more particularly, the chronology of events, following aspects have been weighed with the Court: i) the petitioner is an electricity company run by the government and accordingly, is a public entity; ii) delay in preferring the appeal is of only 132 days; iii) immediately after the judgment and decree is passed, the procedure for necessary approval was started; iv) besides, the application for condonation of delay wa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d to the decreeholder by lapse of time should not be light-heartedly disturbed. The other consideration which cannot be ignored is that if sufficient cause for excusing delay is shown discretion is given to the court to condone delay and admit the appeal. This discretion has been deliberately conferred on the court in order that judicial power and discretion in that behalf should be exercised to advance substantial justice. As has been observed by the Madras High Court in Krishna v. Chathappan ILR (1890) 13 Mad 269 "Section 5 gives the court a discretion which in respect of jurisdiction is to be exercised in the way in which judicial power and discretion ought to be exercised upon principles which are well understood; the words 'sufficient cause' receiving a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence nor inaction nor want of bona fide is imputable to the Appellant. 9. Similarly, in Ram Nath Sao Alias Ram Nath Sahu and Ors. v. Gobardhan Sao and Ors. MANU/SC/0135/2002 : (2002) 3 SCC 195, this Court observed that: But one thing is clear that the courts should not proceed with the tendency of finding fault with the cause shown and reject ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....peculiar to and characteristic of the functioning of the governmental conditions would be cognizant to and requires adoption of pragmatic approach in justice-oriented process." (See also: Special Tehsildar, Land Acquisition, Kerala v. K.V. Ayisumma MANU/SC/0694/1996 : (1996) 10 SCC 634; State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani and Ors. MANU/SC/0426/1996 : (1996) 3 SCC 132) 11. It is manifest that though Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 envisages the explanation of delay to the satisfaction of the Court, and makes no distinction between the State and the citizen, nonetheless adoption of a strict standard of proof in case of the Government, which is dependant on the actions of its officials, who often do not have any personal interest in its transactions, may lead to grave miscarriage of justice and therefore, certain amount of latitude is permissible in such cases. 12. Examined on the touch-stone of the afore-noted observations, we are of the view that in the present case, the conduct of the Appellants does not indicate inaction, negligence or mala fides. The explanation furnished for the marginal delay of 59 days, in our opinion, constitutes a sufficient cause and therefore, des....