Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs Velmurugan on 25 August, 2021
C.M.P.No.13082 of 2021 in
C.M.A.SR.No.70242 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.08.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
C.M.P.No.13082 of 2021
in
C.M.A.SR.No.70242 of 2020
The Managing Director
Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation (Salem) Limited,
Division No.II (Salem),
No.12, Ramakrishna Road,
Regional Office at Dharmapuri,
Bharathipuram, Dharmapuri. ... Appellant
Vs.
Velmurugan ... Respondent
Prayer: C.M.P.No.13082 of 2021 is filed to condone the delay of 1788 days in
filing the above appeal C.M.A.SR.No.70242 of 2020.
C.M.A.SR.No.70242 of 2020 is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree dated 23.01.2015 made in
M.C.O.P.No.317 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Special Sub Court, Dharmapuri.
For Appellant : Ms.Rajathi for
Mr.D.Raghu
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.P.No.13082 of 2021 in
C.M.A.SR.No.70242 of 2020
JUDGMENT
The matter is heard through "Video Conferencing".
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed to condone the delay of
1788 days in filing the C.M.A.SR No. 70242 of 2020 against judgment dated
23.01.2015 made in M.C.O.P.No.317 of 2014 on the file of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court, Dharmapuri.
2. The petitioner has come forward condoning the delay of 1788 days in
filing the C.M.A.SR No. 70242 of 2020 and the reasons given by the petitioner
at Paragraph No. 7 of the affidavit are extracted below:-
" I submit that the decree was passed on 23.01.2015. The
copy application was made on 12.01.2017 and the same was made
ready on 21.02.2017 delivered on 21.02.2017. Thereafter, we have
sent the Judgment to our panel advocate for getting opinion. After
getting opinion from our advocate, it has placed before the appeal
committee for getting approval. There is some delay in convene
appeal committee. In between the Decree and judgment certified
copy went missing. Thereafter we made a fresh copy application on
20.7.2021 and the same was ready and delivered on 23.07.2021.
After complying all the administrative formalities the papers were
forwarded with the office of the present Counsel and without any
further dealy the appeal has been made and presented before the
Hon'ble Court by today. In the above said process there has been a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.P.No.13082 of 2021 in
C.M.A.SR.No.70242 of 2020
delay of 1788 days caused in filing the appeal. Which is neither
wilful nor wanton but due to the bonafide reasons stated above. No
prejudice whatsoever would be caused to the respondent if this
petition is allowed. On the other hand this petition would be put to
irreparable lose and immense hardship if this petition is not
allowed."
3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the issue of delay in
extenso in the case of N.Balakrishnan V. M.Krishnamurthy reported in
(1998) 7 SCC observed as under:
“9. It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of
discretion of the court Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not
say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is
within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability
of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the
shortest range may be uncondonable due to want of acceptable
explanation whereas in certain other cases delay of very long
range can be condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory.
Once the court accepts the explanation as sufficient it is the result
of positive exercise of discretion and normally the superior court
should not disturb such finding, much less in reversional
jurisdiction, unless the exercise of discretion was on whole
untenable grounds or arbitrary or perverse. But it is a different
matter when the first cut refuses to condone the delay. In such
cases, the superior cut would be free to consider the cause shown
for the delay afresh and it is open to such superior court to come
to its own finding even untrammeled by the conclusion of the
lower court.
10.The reason for such a different stance is thus:
The primary function of a court is to adjudicate the dispute
between the parties and to advance substantial justice. Time limit
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.P.No.13082 of 2021 in
C.M.A.SR.No.70242 of 2020
fixed for approaching the court in different situations in not
because on the expiry of such time a bad cause would transform
into a good cause.
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 putt 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 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 Vs. Kuntal Kumari [AIR 1969 SC 575] and State of
West Bengal Vs. 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
put forth as part of a dilatory strategy the court must show utmost
consideration to the suitor. But when there is reasonable ground to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.P.No.13082 of 2021 in
C.M.A.SR.No.70242 of 2020
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 Could should not forget
the opposite party altogether. It must be borne in mind that he is a
looser and he too would have incurred quiet 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.”
4. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court (cited supra) has been
followed by the Division Bench of this Court, in which I was one of the parties
in the case of M/s.Ruskim sea Foods Limited, Stafford Park 15, Teleford
Shropshire TF33BB United Kingdom rep. By their Power of Attorney Agent
Mr.Abdur Rahman No.42, Sindur Plaza Montieth Lane, Egmore, Chennai
600 008 vs. M/s Evergreeen Sea Foods Pvt.,Ltd., rep. By its Managing
Director, Mr.T.Loganathan, No.29, Kummalammankoil Street, Tondiarpet,
Chennai 600 081 and others [C.M.P.Nos.21784 and 21785 of 2017 in OSA
No.SR79476 of 2017] decided on 15.02.2018, wherein it was held as follows:
“36. The Petitioner has come with unclean hands and the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decisions, which were cited by the
Petitioner, had categorically held that the 'length of delay is not a
matter, but the acceptance of explanation is only criteria and
length of delay may be long, but if there is justification, long delay
can also condoned'. If there is a short delay and the explanation is
not satisfactory and if it is on account of smack or malafide or on
account of dilatory strategy, this Court cannot help the persons,
who come before this Court to condone the delay and protract the
proceedings.”
5. If the present case on hand is analyzed on par with the judgments of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.P.No.13082 of 2021 in
C.M.A.SR.No.70242 of 2020
the Supreme Court as well as this Court, it is obvious that even if the delay is
long, the delay can be condoned, provided it is supported by sufficient reasons
and justifications to exercise the discretion of the Court.
6. In this case, the reasons given for condoning the delay of 1788 days
are not acceptable in filing the appeal and the delay has not been properly
explained. Hence, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed and the Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal is rejected at the SR stage itself. No costs.
25.08.2021
dpq
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Speaking/Non speaking order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.P.No.13082 of 2021 in
C.M.A.SR.No.70242 of 2020
S. VAIDYANATHAN, J.
dpq
C.M.P.No.13082 of 2021
in
C.M.A.SR.No.70242 of 2020
25.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
