M/S S.C.P. Agriculture Pumps vs M/S R.R. Polymers And Anr
2025 Latest Caselaw 777 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

M/S S.C.P. Agriculture Pumps vs M/S R.R. Polymers And Anr on 13 January, 2025

                                 Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:003139




1

CRM-21575-2018 in/and
CRM-A-1160-MA-2018 (O&M)

110
           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                       AT CHANDIGARH

                                         CRM-21575-2018 in/and
                                         CRM-A-1160-MA-2018 (O&M)
                                         Date of Decision: 13.01.2025

M/S C.P. AGRICULTURE PUMPS                                 .. Applicant
           Vs.
M/S R.R. POLYMERS AND ANR.                                     ..Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present:     Mr. Karan Sachdeva, Advocate for the applicant.
                                  ...

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. The present application has been filed on behalf of the

applicant seeking condonation of delay of 198 days in filing the application

seeking leave to appeal. Leave to appeal has been sought for by the

applicant against the judgment dated 04.08.2017 passed by the ld. JMIC,

Ludhiana, whereby the complaint filed by the applicant was dismissed in

default and the respondents were acquitted.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant, while seeking

grant of prayer for condonation of delay of 198 days, has argued that the

delay has occurred as the applicant was informed much later by the counsel

representing it before the trial Court that the complaint filed by it had been

dismissed in default. Thereafter, the applicant engaged the counsel before

this Court and application seeking leave to appeal was filed under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. instead of Section 378(4) Cr.P.C., therefore, certain

objections were raised by the Registry. Learned counsel for the applicant

has further argued that the circumstances of the case indicate that the delay

in filing the application seeking leave to appeal is neither intentional nor 1 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:003139

CRM-21575-2018 in/and CRM-A-1160-MA-2018 (O&M)

deliberate hence delay deserves to be condoned.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and have perused

the paper-book.

4. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment of this Court

passed in CRR(F)-1844-2023 titled as Deepak vs. Noori and another

decided on 29.02.2024; relevant whereof reads as under:-

"8. As a sequel to above-said discussion, the following principles of law emerge:

A liberal approach, undoubtedly, ought to be accorded to a plea for condonation of delay made under Section 5 of The Limitation Act, 1969 so as to further the cause of substantial justice. The concept of substantial justice essentially includes in itself the desirability of adjudication of a claim of the litigant on merits thereof rather than rejection of the same, at the threshold, on account of being barred by limitation. However, adoption of such liberal approach cannot be stretched to mean that a prayer (for condonation of delay) ought to be granted sans reasonable explanation therefor. An applicant (seeking condonation of delay) has to bring forward cogent, credible and lucid reason(s) to substantiate such a plea. In case such reason(s) is not scrutable, a Court would well be within its discretion to decline such plea (for condonation of delay). In other words, inexplicable delay ought not to be condoned.

II.A Court ought to grant an application seeking condonation of delay when no negligence, inaction or want of bona fide is imputable to such applicant and/or such delay has occurred on account of circumstances beyond reasonable control of such applicant.

III. It is not the length of delay (sought to be condoned) but explanation thereof which is relevant for consideration by a Court.

IV. Law of limitation does not require an applicant (seeking condonation of delay) to furnish an exhaustive explanation on 'day to-day basis' for such delay. A Court while dealing with a plea for condonation of delay need not undertake such a pedantic approach.

V. In appropriate cases, a Court may consider imposing costs while granting an application for condonation of delay. However, the quantification of costs so imposed, must reflect the same being commensurate to the lis in issue as also attending circumstances therein.

VI. The factum; of non-applicant(s) or even strangers having altered their position(s) relying upon the applicant not having filed an appeal/revision etc. within stipulated time and resultant effects thereof; will indubitably be a pertinent factor for consideration of a plea for condonation of delay.

VII. A plea for condonation of delay by the State as also its instrumentalities has to be accorded a more liberal approach since the machinery involved in their working is impersonal in nature & hidden factors working therein cannot be given a complete amiss.

VIII. The discretion of a Court, while considering a plea for 2 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:003139

CRM-21575-2018 in/and CRM-A-1160-MA-2018 (O&M) condonation of delay, will be exercised in view of peculiar facts/circumstances of an individual case. It is neither prudent nor feasible to fix any exhaustive guidelines for exercising such judicial discretion. On the contrary, it would be perilous to lay down such general criteria for governing such discretion. Needless to emphasize that exercise of such judicial discretion/power ought to be within the four corners of well settled principles of justice, good conscience and fair play."

5. More recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as

'State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ramkumar Choudhary', Neutral Citation:

2024 INSC 932, has observed as under:

"The legal position is that where a case has been presented in the Court beyond limitation, the petitioner has to explain the Court as to what was the "sufficient cause" which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the Court within limitation. In Majji Sannemma v. Reddy Sridevi, it was held by this Court that even though limitation may harshly affect the rights of a party, it has to be applied with all its rigour when prescribed by statute. A reference was also made to the decision of this Court in Ajay Dabra v. Pyare Ram wherein, it was held as follows:

"13. This Court in the case of Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer ((2013) 14 SCC 81] while rejecting an application for condonation of delay for lack of sufficient cause has concluded in Paragraph 15 as follows:

"15. The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the "sufficient cause" which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona fide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this Court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature.

14. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court did not commit any mistake in dismissing the delay condonation application of the present appellant."

Thus, it is crystal clear that the discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised judiciously based on facts and circumstances of each case and that, the expression 'sufficient cause' cannot be liberally interpreted, if negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides is attributed to the party."

3 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:003139

CRM-21575-2018 in/and CRM-A-1160-MA-2018 (O&M)

6. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Pathapati

Subba Reddy (Died) by L.Rs & Ors. vs. The Special Deputy Collector

(LA), Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 286, has observed as under:

"26. On a harmonious consideration of the provisions of the law, as aforesaid, and the law laid down by this Court, it is evident that:

            xxx            xxx            xxx            xxx             xxx    xxx
            vii)           Merits of the case are not required to be considered in
            condoning the delay; and
            (viii)         Delay condonation application has to be decided on the

parameters laid down for condoning the delay and condoning the delay for the reason that the conditions have been imposed, tantamounts to disregarding the statutory provision."

7. Condonation of delay of 198 days in filing the application

seeking leave to appeal is sought for on the following relevant averments:

"2. That the appellant was informed much later by his advocate about his complaint being Dismissed in default. Then immediately there after appellant managed copies. to get certified

3. That there after Advocate engaged in high Court was under this impression that the petition will be filed under Section 482 CRPC and case will be remanded back. Hence the petition was filled on objections were raised by 13.3.2018 But the filling branch for filling a fresh under section 378(4) CRPC on 20.3.2018. Hence the delay has caused due to refilling the petition

4. That the delay of 198 days in filing the present appeal is neither intentional willful, but due to the bonafide mentioned above."

8. A perusal of the above-said averments clearly show that no

reasonable or plausible explanation has been furnished by the applicant to

condone the delay of 198 days in filing the application seeking leave to

appeal. The applicant has failed to provide any concrete explanation or

document to demonstrate his genuine efforts in pursuing the matter within

the prescribed time limit. No cause much less sufficient cause, as required in

law, has been shown to justify or condone the significant delay of 198 days

4 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:003139

CRM-21575-2018 in/and CRM-A-1160-MA-2018 (O&M)

in filing the application seeking leave to appeal. The delay is both

inordinate and inexplicable. Merely attributing the delay to unforeseen

circumstances, without any supporting details or evidence to substantiate

these claims, does not meet the legal threshold for condonation. The

applicant has neither shown continuous interest in the case nor presented

any exceptional or unavoidable circumstances that could explain such an

extensive delay.

8.1 The explanation for the delay contained in the application

seeking condonation of delay is wholly unsatisfactory and can hardly be

said to be a reasonable, satisfactory or even a proper explanation for seeking

condonation of delay. In the facts and circumstances of the case as narrated

hereinabove, the application seeking condonation of delay of 198 days in

filing the application seeking leave to appeal merits dismissal.

Decision

9. The application (CRM-21575-2018) seeking condonation of

delay of 198 days in filing the application seeking leave to appeal is

dismissed. Since the application seeking condonation of delay has been

dismissed, the application seeking leave to appeal stands dismissed as well

accordingly.

10. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.

13.01.2025                                              (SUMEET GOEL)
Jasmine Kaur                                                JUDGE
               Whether speaking/reasoned               Yes    No

               Whether reportable                       Yes   No
                                  5 of 5