Bombay High Court
Sanjubai Dnyaneshwar Patil ... vs The State Of Maharashtra (At The ... on 13 September, 2021
Bench: K.K. Tated
3.8967.21-rpst.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Digitally
signed by
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BASAVRAJ
BASAVRAJ GURAPPA
GURAPPA PATIL
PATIL Date:
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO.8967/2021
2021.09.16
17:06:03 IN
+0530
REVIEW PETITION (ST) NO.8965/2021
IN
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1002/2019
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO.1325/2019
Sanjubai Dnyaneshwar Patil (Koli) & Ors......Applicants
State of Maharashtra ...... Respondent
Mr. Ashok B. Tajane for the Applicants
None for the Respondents
CORAM: K.K.TATED, J.
DATED : SEPTEMBER 13, 2021
(In Chamber at 2.00 pm)
P.C.
1 Heard. By this Interim Application, the Applicants
are seeking condonation of 11 months delay in filing the
Review Petition to review the order dated 03.09.2019
passed by this court in Civil Application No.1002/2019 in
First Appeal (ST) No.1325/2019.
2 The learned counsel for the Applicants submits that
the Respondents had failed to disclose the delay of 2 years
60 days in filing the First Appeal. He submits that bare
reading of the application filed by the Respondents shows
Basavraj G. Patil 1/4
3.8967.21-rpst.odt
that there is no satisfactory reason given by them for
condoning the inordinate delay of 2 years. Hence, the
Applicant has filed the present Review Petition to recall the
said order dated 03.09.2019 passed in Civil Application
No.1002/2019 in the present First Appeal. He submits that
if the Review Petition is not allowed, irreparable loss will be
caused to the Applicant / Petitioner. He submits that in the
present proceedings, none appeared on behalf of the
Respondents before the MACT in MACP NO.148/2013. He
submits that the Petitioner had filed claim petition for
compensation of Rs.4 lacs under section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988. He submits that the Tribunal, after
considering the evidence on record, has rightly awarded
total compensation of Rs.10,48,000/-. He submits that if the
Review Petition is not allowed, irreparable loss will be
caused to the Petitioner. He submits that in the interest of
justice, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to allow the Review
Petition and set aside the order dated 03.09.2019 passed by
this court condoning the delay in Civil Application
No.1002/2019.
3 It is to be noted that, in the present proceedings,
though the Review Petition was duly served on the
Applicant in Civil Application No.1002/2019, none appeared
for them when the matter was called out.
4 The Apex Court in the matter of N.Balkrishnan Vs.
M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 held that the object
of fixing the time limit is not meant to destroy the rights.
The law of limitation fixes a lifespan for such legal remedy
Basavraj G. Patil 2/4
3.8967.21-rpst.odt
for the general welfare. Paragraph Nos.11, 12 and 13 of the
said judgment read thus :
11. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the
right of parties. They are meant to see that parties do
not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy
promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to
repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury.
Law of limitation fixes a life-span for such legal
remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered.
Time is precious and the wasted time would never
revisit. During efflux of time newer causes would
sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal
remedy by approaching the courts. So a life span must
be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for
launching the remedy may lead to unending
uncertainty and consequential anarchy. Law of
limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is
enshrined in the maxim Interest reipublicae up sit
finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period
be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant
to destroy the right of the parties. They are meant to
see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but
seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every
legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively
fixed period of time.
12. A Court knows that refusal to condone delay would
result in foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his
cause. There is no presumption that delay in
approaching the court is always deliberate. This Court
has held that the words "sufficient cause" Under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal
construction so as to advance substantial justice vide
Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari, 1969 SC 575
and State of West Bengal v. The Administrator,
Howrah Municipality, AIR 1972 SC 749.
13. It must be remembered that in every case of delay
there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant
concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his
plea and to shut the door against him. If the
explanation does not smack of mala fides or it is not
Basavraj G. Patil 3/4
3.8967.21-rpst.odt
put forth as part of a dilatory strategy the court must
show utmost consideration to the suitor. But when
there is reasonable ground to think that the delay was
occasioned by the party deliberately to gain time then
the court should lean against acceptance of the
explanation. While condoning delay the Court should
not forget the opposite party altogether. It must be
borne in mind that he is a loser and he too would have
incurred quite a large litigation expenses. It would be
a salutary guideline that when courts condone the
delay due to laches on the part of the applicant the
court shall compensate the opposite party for his
loss."
5. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the Applicant and the law laid down by the apex
court, I am satisfied that the Applicant has made out a case
for condonation of delay.
6 Hence, following order is passed:
a. The Interim Application is allowed.
b. Delay of 11 months in filing the Review Petition
is condoned.
c. No order as to costs.
(K.K.TATED, J.)
Basavraj G. Patil 4/4
