TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 1324
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....toration of the Writ Petition No. 2307 of 1993 referred to above which came to be dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 10.10.2006. 3. The facts giving rise to this appeal may be summarized as under. 4. The suit property bearing S. No. 402, Bungalow No. 15A, situated at Staveley Road, Pune Cantonment, Pune-1 was leased by the respondent in favour of the appellants on 09.03.1951. 5. As the appellants committed breach of the terms of the lease deed, the respondent herein instituted civil suit bearing No. 2599 of 1981 before the Court of the 4th Additional Small Causes Judge, Pune for the recovery of the possession of the suit property & arrears towards the rent. 6. On 02.05.1987, the suit came to be allowed and the final decree came to be passed in the following terms: 'ORDER 1) The plaintiffs are entitled to possession of the suit premises. 2) The defendant shall deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the plaintiffs or before 30.6.1987. 3) The defendants do pay by way of damages and mesne profits and notice charges Rs. 17,383/- to the plaintiffs. 4) The defendant shall also pay future mesne profi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... On 09.07.2019, a learned single Judge of the High Court vide the impugned order declined to condone the delay of 12 years and 158 days in filing the restoration application. 14. In view of the aforesaid, the appellants are here before this Court with the present appeal. Submissions on behalf of the appellants 15. Mr. R. Venkataramani, the learned Attorney General for India appearing for the appellants vehemently submitted that he has a very good case on merits and considering the merits alone, the delay of 12 years and 158 days deserves to be condoned. The learned Attorney General laid much emphasis on the fact that the suit property is situated within the Pune cantonment which is under the ownership of the Union of India and the same was held by the respondent herein on old grant lease and in such circumstances, according to the learned Attorney General, the respondent in his capacity as a private party should not be permitted to deprive the Government of its land after having admitted that the super structure alone belongs to him and that the land belongs to the Government. 16. On the aspect of delay of 12 years and 158 days in filing the restoration application befo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... hand over the possession of the suit property to the respondent herein. We reiterated the very same suggestion before the learned Attorney General that if the appellants are ready and willing to hand over the suit property to the respondent, then, despite there being a long and inordinate delay, we may consider condoning the same and remanding the matter back to the High Court so that the High Court may be in a position to hear the matter on its own merits. However, the learned Attorney General, after taking instructions from his clients, regretted his inability to persuade the appellants to hand over the possession of the suit property to the respondent. 23. In such circumstances referred to above, we were left with no other option but to call upon the learned Attorney General to make submissions as to why we should look into only the merits of the matter and condone the delay of 12 years and 158 days. 24. In the aforesaid circumstances, we made it very clear that we are not going to look into the merits of the matter as long as we are not convinced that sufficient cause has been made out for condonation of such a long and inordinate delay. 25. It hardly matters whether ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on the part of the appellants. The observations are as under :- "9. A perusal of paragraph 4 extracted hereinabove shows that on oath, solemn statement is made that notice of Darkhast No.16 of 2014 for execution of the decree issued by the executing Court was received by the Department on 25.02.2019. As against this, in paragraph 3 of the additional affidavit dated 04.07.2019 made by Rajendra Rajaram Pawar, it is stated that the averments made in paragraph 4 as regards service of Darkhast on 25.02.2019 is factually incorrect. Notice of Darkhast No. 16 of 2014 was received by the defendants on 18.03.2016. The error in the application is out of inadvertence for which he tendered unconditional apology. It is further stated that inadvertent mistake on facts as to knowledge of execution proceedings was purely because of oversight in the light of possibilities of issuance of possession warrant by the executing court and requirement of expeditious urgency of moving before this Court to save the proceeding in litigation since 1981 which otherwise would have got frustrated. He stated that the same is nothing beyond human error. X ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....so the additional affidavit hardly indicates any sufficient cause for condoning the unpardonable delay of 12 years and 158 days." 29. In Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Limited v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation, (2010) 5 SCC 459, this Court rejected the application for condonation of delay of 4 years in filing an application to set aside an exparte decree on the ground that the explanation offered for condonation of delay is found to be not satisfied. 30. In Postmaster General and others v. Living Media India Limited, (2012) 3 SCC 563, this Court, while dismissing the application for condonation of delay of 427 days in filing the Special Leave Petition, held that condonation of delay is not an exception and it should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the government departments. In that case, this Court held that unless the Department has reasonable and acceptable reason for the delay and there was bona fide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process cannot be accepted. In Para Nos. 25, 26, 27, 28, and 29 respectively, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody, including the Government. 29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bona fide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is entitled to wait until the last day of limitation for filing an appeal. But when it allows limitation to expire and pleads sufficient cause for not filing the appeal earlier, the sufficient cause must establish that because some event or circumstance arising before limitation expired it was not possible to file the appeal within time. No event or circumstance arising after the expiry of limitation can constitute sufficient cause." (emphasis supplied) This judgment squarely applies to the facts in hand. X X X X 21. Shri Mohta, learned Senior Counsel relying on the decision of this Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [(1998) 7 SCC 123] submitted that length of delay is no matter and acceptability of explanation is the only criterion. It was submitted that if the explanation offered does not smack of mala fides or it is not put forth as a part of dilatory tactics, the court must show utmost considerati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n that the respondent beneficiary was not diligent in availing the remedy of appeal. The averments made in the application seeking condonation of delay in filing appeals do not show any acceptable cause much less sufficient cause to exercise courts' discretion in its favour." 33. In the case of Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy & Others, (2013) 12 SCC 649, this Court made the following observations: "21. From the aforesaid authorities the principles that can broadly be culled out are: 21.1. (i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented, non-pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice. 21.2. (ii) The terms "sufficient cause" should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact-situation. 21.3. (iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphas....