Madras High Court
Baby vs Union Of India on 5 February, 2021
CMP No.606 of 2021
in CMA SR No.12859 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.02.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
CMP No.606 of 2021
in
CMA SR No.12859 of 2020
1.Baby
2.Nadarajan .. Petitioners/Appellants
vs.
Union of India,
Owning Southern Railway
Rep.by General Manager,
Chennai. .. Respondent/Respondent
PRAYER: CMP No.606 of 2021 is filed under Section 23(3) of Railway
Claims Tribunal, to condone the delay of 224 days in filing the appeal,
against the order dated 15.03.2019 made in O.A.(II-U) 56/2018 on the file
of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai.
CMA SR No.12859 of 2020 is preferred against the order dated 15.03.2019
made in O.A.(II-U) 56/2018 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal,
Chennai.
For Petitioners : Mr.B.Manoharan
For Respondent : Batta due
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMP No.606 of 2021
in CMA SR No.12859 of 2020
ORDER
The Miscellaneous Petition on hand is filed under 23(3) of the
Railway Claims Tribunals Act, to condone the delay of 224 days in filing
the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, against the order dated 15.03.2019 made in
O.A.(II-U) 56/2018 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai.
2. Uncondonable delay cannot be condoned in a routine manner.
Law of limitation is substantive. Litigations / appeals are expected to be
filed within the period of limitation as contemplated under the Statutes.
Rule is to follow limitation. Condonation of delay is an exception.
Exceptions are to be exercised discreetly, if the reasons furnished are
genuine and acceptable. The Courts are vested with the discretion to
condone the delay. This does not mean that enormous delay are to be
condoned mechanically. Undoubtedly, if the reasons are candid and
convincing, then the Courts are empowered to exercise its power of
discretion so as to condone the delay. Power of discretion is a double-edged
weapon. Thus, the discretionary powers are to be exercised cautiously and
uniformly. Exercise of power of discretion if made excessively, would
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMP No.606 of 2021
in CMA SR No.12859 of 2020
defeat the purpose and object of the law of limitation. The Courts are
expected not to travel beyond the permissible extent, so as to condone the
enormous delay in a routine or mechanical manner. Power of discretion is to
be exercised to mitigate the injustice, if any occurred to the litigants.
3. A fine distinction is to be drawn in respect of 'acceptability' and
'unacceptability' as far as the condonation of delay is concerned. The
reasons and its genuinity are important for condoning the delay. It became
unnecessary that the Courts have to consider the precedents and condone
the delay thereafter or reject the same. There are judgments far and against,
but predominantly the facts, circumstances and the genuinity of the reasons
of each case plays a pivotal role in considering the relief of condonation of
delay.
4. Question may arise the purpose and object of the law of
limitation as refusal of condonation of delay sometime causes denial of
rights to the litigants. However, there is a definite purpose for prescription
of period of limitation for institution of litigations. Different time limits are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMP No.606 of 2021
in CMA SR No.12859 of 2020
prescribed for different kinds of litigations. However, there is a strong
reason for such prescription of limitation in various statutes. The litigants
are always expected to be vigilant over their rights and liabilities, duties and
responsibilities. If any citizen of our great nation is allowed to exercise his
right at his whims and fancies without reference to the law of limitation,
circumstances may arise that the rights of other fellow citizens are
prejudiced or affected. Rights cannot be exercised unguidedly. All rights
including fundamental rights under the Constitution of India is certainly
qualified and subject to various restrictions under other laws. Thus, the
rights of citizen and corresponding duty towards the other fellow citizen are
to be balanced in such a manner without causing any prejudice, which
resulted prescription of law of limitation. Exercise of right by a citizen
cannot infringe the right of other fellow citizen. Rights and duties are
corresponding and therefore, the law require a limitation for institution of
litigations.
5. Any citizen slept over his right, cannot wake up one fine
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMP No.606 of 2021
in CMA SR No.12859 of 2020
morning and knock the doors of the Court for redressal of his grievances.
The person, who slept over, has to loose his right and efflux of time results
expiry of the cause. In the event of institution of litigation after a prolonged
period, the other person, who has to defend the litigation will not only
suffer, but would lead to harassment. These all are the mitigating factors,
which all are to be considered, while dealing with the law of limitation as
contemplated under various statutes. Thus, the law of limitation has got a
definite reasoning, logic and various time limitations are prescribed under
various statutes by adopting the principles of “Doctrine of Reasonableness”.
6. The principles of reasonableness would be adopted with
reference to the nature of litigations to be instituted. Various time limits are
prescribed for Civil litigations, Appeals and other kind of litigations,
considering various factors and by applying the Doctrine of reasonableness.
Thus, the law of limitation became substantive and to be followed
scrupulously in all circumstances and on exceptional cases, delay is to be
condoned, if the reasons are genuine and acceptable.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMP No.606 of 2021
in CMA SR No.12859 of 2020
7. Exceptions can never be adopted as a rule. Exceptions are to be
exercised exceptionally and the power discretion is to be exercised
discreetly, so as to mitigate the injustice if any occurred. Condoning long
delay in a routine or mechanical manner is not a good practice by the
Courts. It would result to an injustice in respect of the opposite parties, who
are expected to defend the litigations. Thus, the power of discretion is to be
exercised cautiously and delay has to be condoned by recording reasons and
such reasons must be based on sound legal principles.
8. It is a trend in the Bar that whenever the petition for
condonation of enormous delay is filed, requests are made to impose heavy
costs and condone the delay. This Court also witnesses many number of
such submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners that they are prepared to pay the costs. This Court is of the
humble opinion that by imposing heavy costs, long delay cannot be
condoned. In the event of condoning enormous delay by imposing heavy
costs, undoubtedly, the legal principles are not only compromised, but
'justice' is not done. The Courts are not supposed to compromise on the legal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMP No.606 of 2021
in CMA SR No.12859 of 2020
principles under the guise of imposing certain costs. Costs are imposed on
certain circumstances, when the Court forms an opinion that lapses are
minor and on account of such minor lapses, the parties should not suffer or
their rights cannot be denied. However, costs cannot be in terms with the
number days of delay. It is not an arithmetic principle, where long delay is
to be condoned with heavy costs and for meagre delay, minimum costs is to
be imposed. Such a principle is opposed to public policy and this Court is
not prepared to accept such concept of imposing heavy costs for condoning
enormous delay by violating the Law of Limitation, which is substantive
and the legal principles.
9. Once the delay petition is filed, the same is to be dealt with
independently by scrutinising the reasons stated. For condoning such huge
delay, if the Courts are convinced with the reasons stated by the litigant for
the purpose of condoning the delay, then the Courts are expected to go into
the merits. Contrarily, condonation of delay cannot be allowed based on the
merits of the main appeal. Of course, it is not a trite law to follow. However,
in certain circumstances, Courts can take a lenient view if the reasons are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMP No.606 of 2021
in CMA SR No.12859 of 2020
genuine. For instance, if the delay is about 3 months or six months, the
Courts can take a lenient view,but not otherwise.
10. Based on the above principles, let us now consider the reasons
stated in the affidavit filed in respect of the present civil miscellaneous
appeal. The only reason stated in the affidavit filed in support of the
miscellaneous petition is that the petitioners are hailing from poor and
uneducated family and therefore, they have no legal awareness and thus,
there is a delay of 224 days in filing the appeal.
11. Ignorance of law is not an excuse. This being the basic
principles to be followed and when the petitioners have already conducted a
case before the Railway Tribunal, the contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioners that the petitioners are not having adequate knowledge,
cannot be accepted at all. When they had an experience in conducting a case
before the Railway Tribunal, the petitioners cannot say that they are not
aware of the appeal procedures. This being the factum, a mere statement that
the petitioners are hailing from a poor and uneducated family and they have
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMP No.606 of 2021
in CMA SR No.12859 of 2020
not legal awareness, cannot be accepted at all and such statements are flimsy
and cannot stand under the scrutiny of the principles of law.
12. In view of the reasons stated above, this Court has no
hesitation in arriving a conclusion that the reasons stated by the petitioners
for condoning the long delay of 224 days are neither candid nor convincing
and consequently, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition in C.M.P.No.606 of
2021 stands dismissed and consequently, C.M.A.SR.No.12859 of 2020 is
rejected at the SR Stage itself. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
05.02.2021
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order.
Internet : Yes/No.
Index: Yes/No.
Kak
To
1.The Railway Claims Tribunal,
Chennai Bench.
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMP No.606 of 2021
in CMA SR No.12859 of 2020
Kak
2.The Sub Assistant Registrar,
A.E.Section,
High Court, Madras.
CMP No.606 of 2021
in
CMA SR No.12859 of 2020
05.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
