Madras High Court
The Regional Manager vs Vijaya on 29 January, 2021
CMP No.4443 of 2018
in CMA SR No.16263 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 29.01.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
CMP No.4443 of 2018
in
CMA SR No.16263 of 2018
The Regional Manager,
Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation,
Ramanathapuram. .. Petitioner/Appellant
vs.
1.Vijaya
2.Krishnakumar
3.Lakshmi
4.Minor Iyyappan
Minor Rep.by his mother and next friend,
1st respondent.
5.N.Bakkialakshmi .. Respondents/Respondents
PRAYER: CMP No.4443 of 2018 is filed under Section 30(3) of the
Workmen Compensation Act, R/w Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to
condone the delay of 263 days in filing the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal
against the order dated 06.04.2017 made in W.C.No.214 of 2014 on the file
of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II (Authority under Workmen's
Compensation Act), Chennai.
CMA SR No.16263 of 2018 is preferred against the order dated 06.04.2017
made in W.C.No.214 of 2014 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of
Labour-II (Authority under Workmen's Compensation Act), Chennai.
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMP No.4443 of 2018
in CMA SR No.16263 of 2018
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Munusamy
ORDER
The Miscellaneous Petition on hand is filed under Section 30(3) of
the Workmen Compensation Act, R/w Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to
condone the delay of 263 days in filing the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal,
against the order dated 06.04.2017 made in W.C.No.214 of 2014 on the file
of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II (Authority under Workmen's
Compensation Act), 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMP No.4443 of 2018
in CMA SR No.16263 of 2018
weapon. Thus, the discretionary powers are to be exercised cautiously and
uniformly. Exercise of power of discretion if made excessively, would
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMP No.4443 of 2018
in CMA SR No.16263 of 2018
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
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMP No.4443 of 2018
in CMA SR No.16263 of 2018
5. Any citizen slept over his right, cannot wake up one fine
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMP No.4443 of 2018
in CMA SR No.16263 of 2018
condoned, if the reasons are genuine and acceptable.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMP No.4443 of 2018
in CMA SR No.16263 of 2018
costs, undoubtedly, the legal principles are not only compromised, but
'justice' is not done. The Courts are not supposed to compromise on the legal
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMP No.4443 of 2018
in CMA SR No.16263 of 2018
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
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.
11. The delay of 263 days in filing the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal
is sought to be condoned in the present petition. The reason stated for
condoning such a long delay is that the petitioner contacted their Panel
Advocate through the Head Office and obtained opinion regarding filing of
appeal and thereafter, they got permission from the Head Office of the
Corporation at Chennai and filed an appeal with a delay of 263 days.
12. The delay has not substantiated. The dates and events regarding
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMP No.4443 of 2018
in CMA SR No.16263 of 2018
the contact of Panel Advocate or opinion date or otherwise has not been
stated. Mere statement that there is a delay in contacting the counsel or
getting an administrative permission is insufficient to condone the delay of
263 days in filing the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. Mere lapses or
negligence on the part of the authorities cannot be accepted, unless such a
delay is explained properly and with an acceptable reason.
13. In view of the reasons stated above, this Court has no
hesitation in arriving a conclusion that the reasons stated by the petitioner
for condoning the long delay of 263 days are neither candid nor convincing
and consequently, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition in C.M.P.No.4443 of
2018 stands dismissed and consequently, C.M.A.SR.No.16263 of 2018 is
rejected at the SR Stage itself. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
29.01.2021
Internet : Yes/No.
Index: Yes/No.
Kak
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMP No.4443 of 2018
in CMA SR No.16263 of 2018
Kak
To
1.The Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II (Authority under Workmen's
Compensation Act), Chennai.
2.The Sub Assistant Registrar,
A.E.Section,
High Court, Madras.
CMP No.4443 of 2018
in
CMA SR No.16263 of 2018
29.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
