Madras High Court
The Director General Of Police / vs G.Devaprakasam on 18 October, 2024
Author: D.Krishnakumar
Bench: D.Krishnakumar
C.M.P.No.21921 of 2024 in W.A.SR.No.127825 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.10.2024
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
C.M.P.No.21921 of 2024
in
W.A.SR.No.127825 of 2024
1. The Director General of Police /
Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai, Vepery,
Chennai-7.
2. The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Armed Reserve-I,
Greater Chennai Police,
Vepery, Chennai-7. ... Appellants/Respondents
-vs-
G.Devaprakasam ... Respondent/Petitioner
Prayer: C.M.P.No.21921 of 2024 is filed to condone the delay of 362 days in filing the
above appeal against the order dated 14.08.2023 made in W.P.No.7398 of 2023.
Prayer: W.A.SR.No.127825 of 2024 is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, seeking
to allow the Writ Appeal and set aside the order dated 14.08.2023 made in W.P.No.7398
of 2013 and allow the above Writ Appeal.
For Appellants : Mr.Abishek Murthy
Govt. Advocate
*****
ORDER
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P.No.21921 of 2024 in W.A.SR.No.127825 of 2024
(By D.KRISHNAKUMAR,J.,)
This Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed to condone the delay of
362 days in filing the above appeal against the order dated 14.08.2023 made in
W.P.No.7398 of 2023.
2. Notice to the respondent is dispensed with, as no adverse order is going
to be passed in this petition.
3. The petitioners/appellants have come forward with a prayer to condone
the delay of 362 days, by giving reasons in Paragraph No.11 of the affidavit, which is
extracted below:-
"5. It is respectfully submitted that the copy of the order dated
14.08.2023 passed in W.P.No.7398 of 2023 was received in the Office of
the Commission of Police, Greater Chennai Police, Chennai on
05.10.2023. The Government Pleader, High Court of Madras, Chennai
has been requested to offer his considered opinion on the judgment dated
14.08.2023 in his office letter dated 31.08.2023. The Government
Pleader, High Court of Madras has offered his considered opinion that it
is a fit case for appeal in his opinion. Hence, this present Writ Appeal is
filed based on the opinion of the Government Pleader, High Court of
Madras. Due to administrative reasons, we are unable to file the Writ
Appeal immediately.”
4. The reasons adduced by the petitioners are not convincing and
unsustainable, as the affidavit to condone the delay itself is bereft of particulars and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P.No.21921 of 2024 in W.A.SR.No.127825 of 2024
petitioners have not taken utmost care in drafting the affidavit. The Apex 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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P.No.21921 of 2024 in W.A.SR.No.127825 of 2024
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 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.”
5. The Apex Court in Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar
Academy, (2013) 12 SCC 649, after considering a series of earlier decisions,
summarized 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P.No.21921 of 2024 in W.A.SR.No.127825 of 2024
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
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]”
6. Reiterating the aforesaid principles, the Supreme Court in yet another
case in H.Dohil Constructions Company Private Limited vs Nahar Exports Limited
and another reported in (2015) 1 Supreme Court Cases 680, has categorically held as
follows:
“23. When we apply those principles 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 bonafides as displayed on the part of the Respondents. Further,
when the Respondents have not come forward with proper details as regards
the date when the papers were returned for refiling, the non-furnishing of
satisfactory reasons for not refiling of papers in time and the failure to pay
the Court fee at the time of the filing of appeal papers on 06.09.2007, the
reasons which prevented the Respondents from not paying the Court fee
along with the appeal papers and the failure to furnish the details as to who
was their counsel who was previously entrusted with the filing of the appeals
cumulatively considered, disclose that there was total lack of bonafides in its
approach. It also requires to be stated that in the case on hand, not refiling
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P.No.21921 of 2024 in W.A.SR.No.127825 of 2024
the appeal papers within the time CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2014 22 of 25
(@ SLP (C) Nos.10811-10812 of 2014 & Connected matters 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 parties and the same
principle cannot be given a go-by under the guise of liberal approach even if
it pertains to refiling. The filing of an application for condoning the delay of
1727 days in the matter of refiling without disclosing reasons, much less
satisfactory reasons only results in the Respondents not deserving any
indulgence by the Court in the matter of condonation of delay. The
Respondents had filed the suit for specific performance and when the trial
Court found that the claim for specific performance based on the agreement
was correct but exercised its discretion not to grant the relief for specific
performance but grant only a payment of damages and the Respondents
were really keen to get the decree for specific performance by filing the
appeals, they should have shown utmost diligence and come forward with
justifiable reasons when an enormous delay of five years was involved in
getting its appeals registered”.
7. A Division Bench of this Court 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, elaborately dealt with the issue of
condonation of delay in terms of various judgments of the Supreme Court, was pleased
to hold 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P.No.21921 of 2024 in W.A.SR.No.127825 of 2024
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.”
8. If the present case on hand is analyzed on par with the judgments of 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. 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.
9. In the case on hand, the asseveration as contained in the affidavit is only
a self-serving statement and does not impel us to consider the same as a sufficient cause
D.KRISHNAKUMAR,J.,
AND
P.B.BALAJI,J.,
ar
for condoning such inordinate delay. No reasons, much less valid and cogent reasons,
are assigned to condone the delay. Hence, we see no valid ground to condone the delay
of 362 days in filing the writ appeal.
10. For the foregoing reasons, C.M.P.No.21921 of 2024 is dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P.No.21921 of 2024 in W.A.SR.No.127825 of 2024
Consequently, W.A.SR.No.127825 of 2024 is rejected. No costs.
[D.K.K., J.,] [P.B.B.,J.,]
18.10.2024
Index: Yes / No
Internet: Yes / No
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
ar
C.M.P.No.21921 of 2024 in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
