Kerala High Court
Vijayalakshmi vs State Of Kerala on 8 July, 2021
MFA No.87/2015 1/6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA
Thursday, the 8th day of July 2021 / 17th Ashadha, 1943
CM.APPL.NO.1/2015(CM APPL NO.3973/2015) IN MFA(FOREST) NO. 87 OF 2015
OA 11/2012 OF FOREST TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE
PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS:
1. VIJAYALAKSHMI, D/O.VESU @ SAVITHRI AMMA,CHORAKUNNATH
HOUSE,KALLUVAZHI DESOM,ADAKKAPATHUR,OTTAPALAM TALUK.
2. VESU @ SAVITHRI AMMA, AGED 73 YEARS, CHORAKUNNATH HOUSE,KALLUVAZHI
DESOM,ADAKKAPUTHUR,OTTAPALAM TALUK.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY(FOREST & WILD
LIFE),THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2. CUSTODIAN OF VESTED FOREST ARANYA BHAVAN,FOREST
COMPLEX,OLAVAKKODE,PALAKKAD-678002.
Application praying that in the circumstances stated in the
affidavit filed therewith the High Court be pleased to condone 428 days
delay in filing the M.F.A.(Forest).
This Application coming on for orders, upon perusing the application
and the affidavit filed in support thereof, and upon hearing the arguments
of MR.JACOB SEBASTIAN, Advocate for the applicants and of SRI.NAGARAJ
NARAYANAN, SPL.Government Pleader (FOREST) for the respondents, the court
passed the following:
P.T.O.
MFA No.87/2015 2/6
ANIL K. NARENDRAN & M.R. ANITHA, JJ.
-----------------------------------------------
C.M.Application No.3973 of 2015
(C.M.Application No.1 of 2015)
in
M.F.A.(Forest) No.87 of 2015
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of July, 2021
ORDER
Anil K. Narendran, J.
This is an application filed by the appellants seeking an order to
condone the delay of 428 days in filing this M.F.A. The explanation
offered in paragraph 2 of the affidavit reads thus;
"2. I am the 1st petitioner before the Court below and appellant in
the Appeal and 2nd petitioner is my mother and I conduct the case
on behalf of her also. It is submitted that the O.A.No.11 of 2012
was dismissed on 30.05.2014. Since I was out of station I could
not meet an advocate in High Court to file the Appeal in time.
There is no wilful negligence or latches on my part to file the
M.F.A. on time. If delay is not condoned irreparable injury and
hardships will be caused to me. The elay is calculated as 428
days."
2. In Collector, Land Acquisition v. Katiji [(1987) 2 SCC
107], in the context of Section 5 of the limitation Act, 1963, the Apex
Court held that, the expression 'sufficient cause' employed by the
legislature is adequately elastic to enable the R.C.Rev.Petition No.260
of 2019 8 courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner, which
subserves the ends of justice, that being the life-purpose for the
existence of the institution of Courts.
MFA No.87/2015 3/6
R.C.Rev. No.94 of 2021
:-2-:
3. In Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy
[(2013) 12 SCC 649] the Apex Court while summerising the
principles applicable while dealing with an application for condonation
of delay held that, the concept of liberal approach has to encapsulate
the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally
unfettered free play. The Apex Court held further that, 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. Para.21 of the judgment reads thus;
"21. From the aforesaid authorities the principles that can
broadly be culled out are:
21.1 There should be a liberal, pragmatic,
justiceoriented, 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.
21.2 Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal
the technical considerations should not be given
undue and uncalled for emphasis.
MFA No.87/2015 4/6
R.C.Rev. No.94 of 2021
:-3-:
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.
MFA No.87/2015 5/6
R.C.Rev. No.94 of 2021
:-4-:
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."
4. In Esha Bhattacharjee, after summerising the principles
applicable while dealing with an application for condonation of delay,
the Apex Court added some more guidelines taking note of the
present day scenario, that an application for condonation of delay
should be drafted with careful concern and not in a half-hazard
manner harbouring the notion that the courts are required to condone
delay on the bedrock of the principle that adjudication of a lis on
merits is seminal to justice dispensation system. An application for
condonation of delay should not be dealt with in a routine manner on
the base of individual philosophy which is basically subjective.
Para.22 of the judgment reads thus;
"22. To the aforesaid principles we may add some more
guidelines taking note of the present day scenario. They are:--
MFA No.87/2015 6/6
R.C.Rev. No.94 of 2021
:-5-:
22.1 An application for condonation of delay should be
drafted with careful concern and not in a halfhazard
manner harbouring the notion that the courts are
required to condone delay on the bedrock of the
principle that adjudication of a lis on merits is seminal to
justice dispensation system.
22.2 An application for condonation of delay should not
be dealt with in a routine manner on the base of
individual philosophy which is basically subjective.
22.3 Though no precise formula can be laid down regard
being had to the concept of judicial discretion, yet a
conscious effort for achieving consistency and
collegiality of the adjudicatory system should be made
as that is the ultimate institutional motto.
22.4 The increasing tendency to perceive delay as a
non-serious matter and, hence, lackadaisical propensity
can be exhibited in a nonchalant manner requires to be
curbed, of course, within legal parameters."
5. The learned counsel for the appellants seeks a short
adjournment.
Post on 19.07.2021.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN
Judge
Sd/-
M.R.ANITHA
Judge
bpr
08-07-2021 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
