M/S Jaima Electricals vs S.B.I And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 1785 j&K

                                                      Sr. No. 62

     HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                     AT JAMMU

                                        Pronounced on : 30.12.2021
                                            CONC No. 366/2014
                                            In
                                             MA No. 606/2014
                                           IA No. 998/2014

M/s Jaima Electricals                                ....Petitioner(s)



                        Through: Mr. Jatinder Choudhary, Advocate.
                   Vs


S.B.I and others                                       .....Respondent(s)


                        Through: Mr. M.P.Gupta, Advocate.
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PUNEET GUPTA, JUDGE
                                  ORDER

1. The application filed by the applicant herein seeks condonation of

delay in filing the appeal against order dated 13.06.2014 passed

by the trial court whereby the application filed for setting aside

ex-parte proceedings (in counter claim) and application filed for

condonation of delay in filing application for restoration of the

suit stands dismissed.

2. The ground taken in the present application filed for condonation

of delay is that the order was not announced in the court and the

counsel for the applicant was under the belief that the order is yet

to be passed in the applications. It is further mentioned in the

application that when the counsel for the applicant went to argue

the applications on 03.12.2014, he came to know that the

applications have been dismissed on 13.06.2014. The delay in

filing the present appeal is not intentional or deliberate but the

MA No. 606/2014 IA No. 998/2014

same has happened due to the aforesaid circumstances. As per the

applicant, he was supplied the copy of the impugned order on

11.12.2014.

3. The objections to the application have been filed wherein the

respondents have denied the assertions of bonafide reason in not

filing the present application against the order impugned within

time. The applicant was in the knowledge of the order dated

13.06.2014 from the date of its passing and, therefore, cannot seek

any relief in the present application.

4. The learned counsel for the applicant herein has argued that the

sufficient cause has been shown in the application for not

preferring the appeal against the impugned order within time. The

Limitation should not come in the way of the applicant to agitate

the impugned order on merits. He has referred to (1996) 3 SCC

132 in support of his contentions.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has argued in

line with the submissions made in the objections filed to the

present application. It is urged before the court that no cause less

any sufficient cause has been made out in the application which

should prompt the court to allow the present application.

6. The mere perusal of the application filed for condonation of delay

in filing the appeal reveals that the application is vague and

unsubstantiated. It is submitted in the application that he had filed

MA No. 606/2014 IA No. 998/2014

the applications before the trial court and then states that the order

was not announced in the open court and when he went to argue

the application on 03.12.2014 he came to know of the dismissal of

the applications.

7. From the perusal of the order sheet it is evident that the counsels

had argued the applications before the trial court on 10.06.2014

and the same was put up for orders on 13.06.2014. The order on

the applications came to be passed on 13.06.2014. It is significant

to mention herein that the applicant herein has not averred in the

application of the period when the applications before the trial

court were heard and when he again visited the court on

03.12.2014 for appearance in the case. There is not even a whisper

in the application as to how the applicant appeared before the

court only on 03.12.2014 after 10.06.2014 when the arguments

were heard in the application.

8. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that the

delay should be condoned and the appeal should be heard on

merits as is held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Judgment of

1996 (supra) is without substance. The Supreme Court had

condoned the delay keeping in view the facts of the case. The

court was dealing with the case where the State had filed the

appeal before the Apex Court against the order of the Division

Bench of the High Court whereby the court had refused to

MA No. 606/2014 IA No. 998/2014

condone the delay of 109 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal.

Each case has to be decided on its own merits keeping in view the

facts of the case.

9. The learned counsel for the respondents has referred to 1997 (7)

SCC 556 wherein the Supreme Court held that the law of

limitation is required to be applied with all its rigour when the

statute so prescribes and the courts have no power to extend the

period of limitation on equitable ground though the limitation may

harshly affect a particular party.

10. The court cannot allow the condonation application only for the

reason that the applicant has tried to fill the lacuna of his

negligence by raising the plea which is apparently not tenable and

is contrary to the record of the trial court which is before this

Court. The provisions of the Limitation Act are required to be

strictly construed, purposefully carried out and no leverage can be

given to the party who fails to make out a case of sufficient cause

in his favour in such like application. Infact the plea taken in the

application is bereft of any basis and cannot find favour with the

court so as to allow the same.

11. The Court finds no reason to condone the delay in filing the

present application keeping in view the discussion made above.

The application is without substance and is, accordingly,

MA No. 606/2014 IA No. 998/2014

dismissed. Consequently, the appeal filed along with the

application also stands dismissed.

(Puneet Gupta) Judge Jammu 30.12.2021 Pawan Chopra

Whether the order is speaking? Yes/No Whether the order is reportable? Yes/No

PAWAN CHOPRA 2021.12.30 15:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document