Allahabad High Court
Mangeram vs Civil Judge (Sd)/S.C. Court ... on 6 May, 2019
Bench: Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AFR
Court No. - 58
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3558 of 2019
Petitioner :- Mangeram
Respondent :- Civil Judge (Sd)/S.C. Court Muzaffarnagar And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravi Agrawal
Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.
1. Heard Sri Ravi Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The present petition seeks to challenge the order dated 28.02.2019 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)-VII, Muzaffar Nagar in SCC Suit No.06 of 2008 (Devkinandan (deceased) Vs. Salekchand (deceased) & Anr.) whereby the application filed by the legal heirs/representatives of the deceased-landlord Devkinandan for their substitution alongwith an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of Limitation Act have been allowed and the abatement has been set aside on payment of costs of Rs.2,000/-.
3. The court below has taken note of the fact that a Will had been executed by the deceased-plaintiff, which fact was not known to the applicants (respondent nos. 2 and 3 herein), and upon coming to know of the aforesaid fact, an application (Application No. 96-ka) along with an affidavit and an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay was filed seeking their substitution and making a prayer for setting aside the abatement. The court below upon considering the facts of the case has held that the reasons which had been furnished for condonation of delay were sufficient, and accordingly the application seeking condonation of delay and also the substitution application have been allowed and the abatement has been set aside.
4. It is well settled that while considering an application seeking condonation of delay the expression 'sufficient cause' should be given a liberal interpretation so as to ensure that substantial justice is done, and as long as negligence or lack of bona fides cannot be imputed to a party seeking condonation of delay, the Court should lean in favour of condoning the delay and hearing the case on merits.
5. In the case of Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others1, the principles to be applied while considering an application seeking condonation of delay were culled out, and it was stated as follows :-
"21.1. 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. 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. Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis.
21.4. No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of.
21.5. Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact.
21.6. It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof should not affect public justice and cause public mischief because the courts are required to be vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate there is no real failure of justice.
21.7. The concept of liberal approach has to encapsule the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play.
21.8. There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation.
21.9. The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach.
21.10. If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation.
21.11. It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation by taking recourse to the technicalities of law of limitation.
21.12. The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully scrutinized and the approach should be based on the paradigm of judicial discretion which is founded on objective reasoning and not on individual perception.
21.13. The State or a public body or an entity representing a collective cause should be given some acceptable latitude."
6. The aforementioned principles which are to be applied while considering an application seeking condonation of deleay, specifically provide that a very technical or pedantic view is to be eschewed and the effort of the Court should be to lean in favour of a view which advances the cause of justice.
7. Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to dispute the aforementioned legal proposition that Courts are required to adopt a liberal approach while considering an application seeking condonation of delay where sufficient reasons have been furnished.
8. No material error or irregularity has been pointed out in the order passed by the court below so as to warrant interference.
9. The petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 6.5.2019
Pratima
(Dr. Y.K. Srivastava,J.)
