Harkesh (Deceased) Thr Lrs vs Union Of India & Anr
2015 Latest Caselaw 291 Del

*            HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         RSA No.45/2015

                          Decided on : 13th January, 2015
    HARKESH (DECEASED) THR LRS              ..... Appellant

                              Through:     Mr.Raj Bahadur Singh, Adv.

                              versus

    UNION OF INDIA & ANR                              ..... Respondent

                              Through:     Mr.Dhanesh Relan, Adv.

    CORAM:
    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

    V.K. SHALI, J. (ORAL)

CM No.591/2015

1. Allowed subject to deficiency being rectified.

2. The application stands disposed of.

CM No.590/2015 (For Condonation of Delay of 1174 days)

1. This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 1174

days in filing the present appeal.

2. It has been stated in the application seeking condonation of

delay that the order which is being assailed in the present appeal is

dated 27.09.2011. The appellants applied for certified copy in the first week of January, 2012 and got the same on 18.01.2012, but

the appellants could not contact his counsel as all the similar

appeals had been dismissed by the this Court on 07.06.2011. It is

stated that the appellants filed an execution petition in the trial

court for receiving the enhanced compensation only on 03.12.2004,

which they have received and thereafter the appellants were

advised by the present counsel that they should file an appeal for

further enhancement of compensation before the Hon'ble Supreme

Court because the other co-sharers/co-villagers have filed a special

leave petition before the Hon'ble the Supreme Court against the

order of dismissal passed by the High Court. Hence the present

appeal is filed.

3. The appellants are illiterate persons and do not know

anything about law of limitation and, therefore, the delay of 1174

days has occurred in filing the present appeal.

4. It has been stated that the appellants prima facie have a good

case and are likely to succeed and the market value of the land may

be enhanced by this court as the trial court has assessed the market

value of the land in question at the rate of Rs.89,600/- per bigha, which is ridiculously low and thus condonation of delay of 1174

days is sought.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and have

also gone through the record. The Section 5 of the Limitation Act,

1996 lays down that the delay in filing the appeal or an application

may be condoned if 'sufficient cause' is shown. The words

'sufficient cause' has been interpreted to be a cause which is

beyond human control. While interpreting the words 'sufficient

cause', the court has observed that quantum of delay is not

relevant. What is relevant are the bona fides of a party in

prosecuting the matter. In the instant case, the bona fides of the

appellants are not genuine in preferring the appeal and

consequently the quantum of delay also becomes important.

6. As a matter of fact the quantum of delay is not 1174 days but

it is approximately 1195 days. This is on account of the fact that

admittedly the order of the High Court was passed on 27.09.2011.

The present appellants did not apply for certified copy till the

expiry of period of limitation or any other words, as per their own

version, applied for the same in the first week of January, 2012 i.e.

after expiry of more than 90 days which is the maximum period within which the appeal can be filed. The said certified copy has

been delivered to the appellant on 18.01.2012. Because of these

reasons, the period of time spent by the appellants in obtaining the

certified copy could not be deducted from the period of limitation

or in other words, the period of limitation in the instant case will be

reckoned from 28.09.2011 that is immediately on the next of the

judgment and since the appeal itself has been filed on 05.01.2015,

the period in between both days inclusive would come to 1195

days approximately which is the period of delay involved in filing

the instant appeal.

7. The application does not use even the words 'sufficient

cause'. The appellants seem to be fence sitters and having chosen

not to file an appeal in time, have belatedly become wise as the

other co-sharers/co-villagers have gone to the Supreme Court for

enhancement of compensation on account of dismissal of their

respective appeals in the High Court. The appellants have a feeling

that in case the co-sharers are able to get the compensation

enhanced then they would be a looser as they cannot get enhanced

compensation; hence, the present appeal has been filed. Thus, the

appellants also want to ride the said bandwagon and take a chance that in case other co-sharers/co-villagers succeed in obtaining the

enhancement, then they should also benefit. In other words, the

appellants are trying to speculate and, therefore, take advantage of

this speculation in getting the compensation enhanced.

8. The purpose of limitation of limitation of law is to give

finality to the judgments. The purpose of law of limitation is also

to ensure that a party should not be permitted to rake up stale

claims. In other words, the law help those who are vigilant to

protect their own rights.

9. In the instant case, the dismissal of the present appeal after

condoning the delay in filing the appeal would permit the

appellants to take advantage of the judgment of the Supreme Court

if the same is favourable to other co-sharers/co-villagers in getting

the enhanced compensation. This cannot be permitted to be done as

this is a kind of speculative litigation.

10. For these reasons, I feel that the appellants have not been

able to explain sufficient cause of filing the appeal belatedly and

accordingly the applications seeking condonation of delay are

dismissed.

LA.Appeal No.45/2015

1. Since the application seeking condonation of delay in filing

the appeal has been dismissed, the appeal is also dismissed as

being barred by time.

V.K. SHALI, J JANUARY 13, 2015/dm