2 15.03.2021 This Matter Is Taken ... vs Unknown
2021 Latest Caselaw 3577 Ori

                    W.A. No.659 of 2019

                                              //1//




                             I.A. No.1043 of 2019

02   15.03.2021              This matter is taken up through Hybrid
                  mode.
                             Heard Mr.Jayant Ku. Rath, learned Senior
                  Counsel for the appellants and Mr.M.R.Mohanty,
                  learned Senior Counsel for the sole respondent.
                             This is an application under Section 5 of the
                  Limitation Act filed by the appellants for condonation of
                  65 days delay in preferring the appeal.
                             Learned counsel for the appellants drawing
                  the attention of this Court to paragraph-3 of the I.A.
                  and steps taken on different dates, argued that the
                  appellants have shown sufficient cause for condonation
                  of delay in preferring the appeal.
                             We are     inclined      to take   notice   of   the
                  judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
                  Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another
                  Vrs. Mst. Katiji and others reported in AIR 1987 SC
                  1353, wherein the following observations are made:
                       "1.Ordinary a litigant does not stand to benefit by
                        lodging an appeal late.

                          2.Refusing to condone delay can result in a
                          meritorious matter being thrown out at the very
                          threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As
     Bichi                against this when delay is condoned the highest
                          that can happen is that a cause would be decided
                          on merits after hearing the parties.

                          3."Every day's delay must be explained" does not
                          mean that a pedantic approach should be made.
                            //2//




      Why not every hour's delay every second's delay ?
      The doctrine must be applied in a rational common
      sense pragmatic manner.

      4.When      substantial    justice   and   technical
      considerations are pitted against each other cause
      of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for
      the other side cannot claim to have vested right in
      injustice being done because of a non-deliberate
      delay.
      5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned
      deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence,
      or      on       account      of      mala     fides.
      A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to
      delay. In fact he runs a serious risk.

      6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected
      not on account of its power to legalize injustice on
      technical grounds but because it is capable of
      removing injustice and is expected to do so."

          It is apparent from the aforesaid judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court that a meritorious matter
should not be nipped at the bud on the technical
questions of delay or condonation thereof. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court has given a direction that a liberal
compassionate view of the matter should be taken in
all such matters. It is further laid down that the
instrumentalities of the State shall also be treated as
same or at par with a private litigant.
          Since there is a important question to be
decided in the appeal, we are of the opinion that the
delay should be condoned. Accordingly, we allow the
interim application and condone the delay of 65 days in
filing the writ appeal.
                                                      //3//




                        The I.A. is accordingly disposed of.


                                                       ..............................
                                                          S.K.Mishra, J.

................................. Savitri Ratho, J.

W.A. No.659 of 2019 03 15.03.2021 Learned counsel for the respondent emphatically submitted that the appeal is without any merit and the same has been preferred only a view to deprive the respondent of his legitimate dues.

Keeping in view the aforesaid contention, we are inclined to take up the matter for expeditious hearing.

List this matter on 31.03.2021. None of the counsel appearing for both sides shall seek time on that date. We shall also endeavour to make effort to dispose of this case on the said date.

.............................. S.K.Mishra, J.

................................. Savitri Ratho, J.

//4//