Madras High Court
Divya Kondaveeti vs The Registrar on 16 August, 2024
Author: D.Krishnakumar
Bench: D.Krishnakumar
W.M.P.No.21346 of 2024
in Rev.Aplw No. SR 85395 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16.08.2024
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.D.KRISHNAKUMAR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
W.M.P.No.21346 of 2024
and Rev.Aplw No. SR 85395 of 2024
in W.P.No.8333 of 2019
Divya Kondaveeti .. Petitioner/
Applicant
Vs
1.The Registrar,
Central Administrative Tribunal,
Chennai Bench,
High Court, Chennai-600 104.
2.Union of India,
rep. by the Chairman,
Railway Recruitment Board,
No.5, Dr. P.V.Cherian Crescent Road,
Egmore, Chennai-600 008. .. Respondent
Prayer in W.M.P.No.21346 of 2024: Petition filed to condone the delay
of 348 days in filing Rev.Aplw No. SR 85395 of 2024.
____________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.M.P.No.21346 of 2024
in Rev.Aplw No. SR 85395 of 2024
Prayer in Rev.Aplw No. SR 85395 of 2024: Review Application filed
under Order 47, Rule 1 read with Section 114 of CPC against the
judgment dated 22.6.2023 passed in W.P.No.8333 of 2019.
For the Petitioner/ : Mr.T.S.Rajamohan
Applicant
ORDER
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice)
The miscellaneous petition is filed to condone the delay of 348
in filing the review application.
2. The review application is filed against the judgment dated
22.6.2023 made in W.P.No.8333 of 2019. There is no proper
explanation given in the affidavit filed in support of the
miscellaneous petition seeking condonation of delay in filing the
review application. In the affidavit, it has been stated that this
Court passed the final order on 22.6.2023 dismissing the writ
petition by holding that the petitioner appeared for the written
examination without raising any objection. The petitioner has
forwarded her objection on 17.12.2014 and the same was not
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
in Rev.Aplw No. SR 85395 of 2024
considered by the Tribunal. The same occasioned in the writ
petition also, hence, the petitioner has filed the review application
raising substantial grounds. It is also stated that she is the resident
of Hyderabad and since her family members suffered from Corona
virus, she could not move out from Hyderabad to Chennai to meet
her counsel and brief him. Further, the ill-health of her husband
also contributed to her postponement of travel to Chennai.
Therefore, the delay of 348 days occasioned in filing the review
application.
3. It is well-settled proposition of law that condonation of
delay is a matter of discretion of the court. What the court has to
consider is not the length of delay, but the acceptability of the
explanation.
4. Before adverting to the merits of the explanation proffered
by the petitioner, it is apposite to refer to the decision of the Apex
Court in Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy,
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
in Rev.Aplw No. SR 85395 of 2024
(2013) 12 SCC 649, wherein after considering a series of earlier
decisions, the Apex Court summarised the principles to be followed
while considering an application for condonation of delay. The
relevant portion of the said decision is extracted hereunder:
“21.8. (viii) 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. (ix) 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.
...
22.1. (a) An application for condonation of delay
should be drafted with careful concern and not
in a haphazard manner harbouring the notion
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
in Rev.Aplw No. SR 85395 of 2024
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. (b) 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.”
[emphasis supplied]
5. Reiterating the aforesaid principles, the Supreme Court in H.
Dohil Constructions Co. (P) Ltd. v. Nahar Exports Ltd., (2015) 1
SCC 680, held as under:
“24. When we apply those principles of Bhattacharjee
case to the case on hand, it has to be stated that the
failure of the respondents in not showing due
diligence in filing of the appeals and the
enormous time taken in the refiling can only be
construed, in the absence of any valid
explanation, as gross negligence and lacks in
bona fides as displayed on the part of the
respondents. ... It also requires to be stated that in
the case on hand, not refiling the appeal papers
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
in Rev.Aplw No. SR 85395 of 2024
within the time prescribed and by allowing the
delay to the extent of nearly 1727 days,
definitely calls for a stringent scrutiny and cannot
be accepted as having been explained without
proper reasons. As has been laid down by this
Court, courts are required to weigh the scale of
balance of justice in respect of both the parties
and the same principle cannot be given a go-by
under the guise of liberal approach even if it
pertains to refiling...”
[emphasis supplied]
6. On the basis of law enunciated in the decisions, referred
supra, it is discernible that the court is vested with power to
condone the delay in filing an appeal, provided sufficient cause is
shown by the petitioner. It is not necessary that the petitioner
should explain every day’s delay in literal sense. When substantial
justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other,
the cause of substantial justice should be given due weightage. Any
course of action adopted by the Court must serve the ends of
justice. Once the Court is convinced that delay is properly
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
in Rev.Aplw No. SR 85395 of 2024
explained and is non-deliberate, then it must consider condoning
the delay. However, if there is an unexplained towering delay,
doctrine of prejudice is attracted and warrants strict approach.
7. In the case on hand, as stated supra, there is no specific
explanation/reason stated by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in
support of the miscellaneous petition. Since, no reasons, much
less valid and cogent reasons, are assigned to condone the delay of
348 days, we see no valid ground to condone the delay in filing
review application.
For the foregoing reasons, W.M.P.No.21346 of 2024 is
dismissed. Consequently, Rev.Aplw No. SR 85395 of 2024 is
rejected. There shall be no order as to costs.
(D.K.K., ACJ.) (P.D.B, J.)
16.08.2024
Index : Yes/No
NC : Yes/No
bbr
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
in Rev.Aplw No. SR 85395 of 2024
THE HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
P.DHANABAL, J.
bbr
and Rev.Aplw.No. SR 85395 of 2024
16.08.2024
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
