Vikram Bakshi & Others vs Mrs. Sonia Khosla And Others
2011 Latest Caselaw 1084 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                     CONT. APP. (c) No. 27/2010

%                            Date of Decision:   23rd February, 2011

VIKRAM BAKSHI & OTHERS                               .... PETITIONERS

                      Through:   Mr. Anand M. Mishra, Advocate.

                                 Versus

MRS. SONIA KHOSLA AND OTHERS                         ...RESPONDENTS

                      Through:   Mr. Deepak Khosla, R-2 in person.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.MEHTA

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers
   may be allowed to see the judgment?             No
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?              No
3. Whether the judgment should be
   reported in the Digest?                         No


M.L.MEHTA, J. (Oral)

C.M. No. 13701/2010 (delay) In CONT. APP. (c) No. 27/2010

1. Vide this order, the aforesaid application for condonation of

delay is being disposed of.

2. The appellants have filed contempt appeal being 27 of 2010

on 13th July, 2010, against the order dated 26th April, 2010,

passed by the learned Single Judge in CCP No. 2 of 2010. The

instant application, is filed for seeking condonation of delay in

filing the said appeal. The statutory limitation period for filing

the appeal was admittedly 30 days from the date of the order.

The appeal, filed on 13th July, 2010, admittedly, appears to be

time barred.

3. It is stated that order dated 26th April, 2010 was ex-parte

against the appellants and they got the copy of the order only

on 17th May, 2010. The same was handed over to the counsel

for the appellants during last week of May, 2010 for taking

necessary steps and for preparing the present appeal. Since

the Courts were about to close for summer vacations, learned

counsel for the appellant was busy in attending other matters

between the parties. It is averred that during summer

vacations, learned counsel for the appellants was out of

station and returned on 30th June, 2010. He prepared a draft

appeal and sent the same to the appellants for finalizing the

same on 4th July, 2010, but since appellant No. 1 was out of

station uptill 10th July, 2010, the same was signed by him only

on 12th July, 2010. It is averred that the delay in filing the

present appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate, but for

bona fide reasons.

4. The application was opposed and contested by Mr. Deepak

Khosla, respondent No. 2 in person. He submitted that the

counsel for the appellants had the knowledge of the orders

passed on 26th April, 2010, as he was present in the Court on

that date in some other case between the parties. He also

submitted that copy of the order was also given to learned

counsel for the appellants on 27th April, 2010 i.e., on the next

day and that the counsel was also informed about the passing

of the order by e-mail. He further submitted that the period of

thirty days was to be calculated from the day of knowledge of

the order dated 24th April, 2010. Mr. Deepak Khosla relied

upon the case of Khemchand Agrawal v. Commissioner,

Irrigation, Government of Orissa, 2004 Law Suit (Ori) 28.

5. This fact was not denied by learned counsel for the appellants

that Mr. Khosla informed him about the passing of the order of

26th April, 2010 in the Court when he was present in some

other matter. However, it is denied that the copy of the order

was supplied to him on that day.

6. There is no dispute that the order of learned Single Judge

dated 26th April, 2010 was ex-parte against the appellants.

Mr. Deepak Khosla informed the learned counsel for the

appellants about the passing of the aforesaid order in the

Court on 26th April, 2010. A copy of the same was also given

to him on the next day i.e. 27th April, 2010 (though denied).

The admitted fact is that the appellants received the copy of

the order on 17th May, 2010 with the notice of the contempt

petition dated 26th April, 2010. The aforesaid judgment relied

upon by Mr. Deepak Khosla is not applicable in the present

case, inasmuch as, in the said case, no application for

condonation of delay was filed along with the main petition,

but was filed later on. In any case, that case related to

applicability of Section 20 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

which provided for limitation of one year for initiation of

contempt proceedings. It was in that context that Section 5 of

the Limitation Act, 1963 was held to have no applicability to

the proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act. There are

catena of judgments which have held that 'sufficient cause'

required to be established for condonation of delay should

receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial

justice when no negligence or inaction or bona fides is

imputable to a party. Whether explanation furnished would

constitute 'sufficient cause' or not will depend upon the facts

of each case. There cannot be a straitjacket formula for

accepting or rejecting explanation furnished for the delay

caused in taking steps. The Courts should not proceed with

the tendency of finding fault with the cause shown and reject

the petition by slipshod order. Acceptance of explanation

furnished should be the rule and refusal an exception more so

when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fide can be

imputed to the defaulting party. A liberal approach is to be

adopted and sufficient cause must be made out in a pragmatic

manner and a pedantic approach calling upon a party to

explain each days delay is to be avoided.

6. Reference in this regard is made to Collector, Land

Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji, AIR 1987 SC 1353 and

G.Ramagowda v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, AIR

1988 SC 897.

7. The instant application is supported with the affidavits of all

the appellants. The period of limitation is to be calculated not

from the day of the knowledge but form the day of receipt of

copy of the order. That being the case, the period is to be

calculated from 17th May, 2010. In this view of matter, the

limitation period was to expire on 16th June, 2010. Admittedly,

the Courts were closed for summer vacations during this

period and re-opened on 1st July, 2010. The appeal is filed on

13th July, 2010. Therefore, the delay is of 13 days i.e., from 1st

July to 13th July, 2010. The appellants have explained that

appellant No. 1 was out of station from 4th to 10th July, 2010

due to some business engagements and returned on 10th July.

Apparently, there was some element of carelessness on the

part of the appellants in not filing the appeal between 1 st to 4th

July, 2010 or on 11th/12th July, 2010. Keeping in view the

entire gamut of litigation pending between the parties and

consequential effects of the order dated 26th April, 2010

restraining the appellants, it could not be said that the

appellants inaction was deliberate or intentional.

8. Keeping in view the principals of law regarding condonation of

delay, as noted above, and large ongoing litigation and

contest being made by the parties against each other, we are

inclined to exercise our discretion and condone the delay in

filing the instant application. The same is, hereby, allowed.

M.L.MEHTA (JUDGE)

A.K.SIKRI (JUDGE) FEBRUARY 23, 2011 AK