The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Rajveer Singh vs Bramjeet Singh & Ors. consisting of Justice C. Harishankar observed that if delay in filing an appeal is not gross or unacceptable, the court should ensure that the right to prosecute the remedy provided by the law is not denied.
Facts
This appeal u/s 100 CPC assails an order passed by the learned Additional District Judge (“the learned ADJ”), rejecting an application, filed by the appellant u/s 5 of Limitation Act, 1963, for condonation of 58 days delay. The application for condonation of delay, which was dismissed, averred that the learned Counsel for the appellant could not ascertain, on 2nd/3rd June 2017, that the appellant’s suit had been dismissed on 2nd June 2017 and that, on 10th June, 2017, when he queried about the matter, he was given a wrong impression that it was decreed. Thereafter, summer vacations intervened, at the conclusion whereof the counsel for the appellant, on 3rd July 2017 applied for a certified copy of the order dated 2nd June 2017, which became available on 31st July 2017. It was only on perusal of said certified copy, contended the application, that the learned Counsel came to know that the appellant’s suit had in fact been dismissed. The appeal, therefore, came to be filed on 29th August, 2017. In this process, 58 days delay took place, of which the appellant sought condonation.
The present appeal raised the substantial question of law as to whether the learned ADJ correctly exercised the discretion vested in him by Section 5 of the Limitation Act, in refusing to condone the delay in preferring of RCA 67/2017, by the appellant.
Observations of the Court
The Bench noted that while delay in prosecuting legal remedies can, on occasion, deprive the availability of the remedy, it is also true that, where the delay is not gross or unconscionable, the court should make attempts to ensure that the right to prosecute the remedy provided by the law is not denied.
It was also noted that in an appropriate case, the court would always compensate the delay by awarding appropriate costs. Where the delay is not unreasonable, a liberal approach is required to be adopted by the court, to ensure that the right to approach the court for redress is not lost.
It was further noted that the delay in the present case is only of 58 days. Given the reasons cited for the delay, the bench opined that a case was made out for condoning the delay, even though on reasonable costs.
Judgment
The Bench noted that subject to the appellant paying, to the respondent, costs of ₹ 3,000/- within two weeks from the day of judgment, the impugned order would be set aside to the extent it dismisses the appellant’s application for condonation of delay, which would stand allowed, subject to payment of costs as said.
Case: Rajveer Singh vs Bramjeet Singh & Ors.
Citation: RSA 199/2019 & CM APPL. 43257/2019
Bench: Justice C. Harishankar
Decided on: 24th May 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
