Recently, the Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed the second appeal filed by the appellant along with an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Court held that the delay of 3244 days in filing the appeal was inordinate, and the reasons cited were insufficient and unconvincing.
Brief Facts:
The appellant was one of the plaintiffs in a Civil Suit, which was dismissed by the Civil Judge. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs filed a Civil Appeal, which was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge. Over eleven years later, the present second appeal was filed before the High Court along with an interlocutory application, seeking condonation of the delay of 3244 days. The appellant submitted that due to poverty and a lack of knowledge of legal procedure, he was unable to file the appeal earlier.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the delay occurred due to the appellant’s financial constraints and unawareness of legal procedures. It was argued that although the delay was long, the cause was bona fide and not deliberate. A liberal approach, in line with judicial precedents, was urged.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The State counsel opposed the application, contending that the appeal was filed after an inordinate delay of more than 11 years and no justifiable or satisfactory reason had been provided. It was argued that permitting such delayed appeals would unsettle settled rights and adversely affect the interests of decree-holders.
Observations of the Court:
The Court acknowledged that while a liberal approach is to be adopted while considering applications for condonation of delay, the discretion must be exercised judiciously and not in a mechanical manner.
The Court observed that the explanation offered by the appellant was vague and lacked specific details. The Court said that if the appellant was having any financial crunches, then he might have filed an appropriate application for permission to file an appeal, as an indigent person, but no such application has been filed by the appellant. Given the long passage of time, the Court found that the appellant’s conduct was not bona fide and declined to exercise discretion in his favor.
Decision of the Court:
The Chhattisgarh High Court, dismissing the appeal, held that the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay, and consequently, the second appeal stands dismissed.
Case Title: Badri Prasad vs. Ramdas Gond (Through LRs) & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi
Case No.: SECOND APPEAL NO: 169/2024
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Malay Jain
Advocate for the Respondent (State): Ms. Mukta Tripathi, P.L.
Picture Source :
