State Of Rajasthan vs Mahendra Sahu ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 5063 Raj

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 5063 Raj
Judgement Date : 23 May, 2023

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

State Of Rajasthan vs Mahendra Sahu ... on 23 May, 2023

Bench: Rekha Borana

[2023/RJJD/016858]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 57/2018

State of Rajasthan through the Mining Engineer, Sojat City, Tehsil Sojat, District Pali (Raj.).

----Appellant Versus Mahendra Sahu S/o Shri Moolchand Sahu, R/o House No. 86-A- 45, Ramnagar, Narsinghpura, Ajmer Raj..

                                                                    ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)             :     Mr. Lakshaya Pagaria for
                                   Mr. Sandeep Shah, AAG
For Respondent(s)            :     --



              HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

                                        Order

23/05/2023

1. The present regular appeal has been preferred against the

judgment and decree dated 21.07.2014 passed by the Additional

District Judge, Sojat, District Pali in Civil Original Suit No.17/2009

vide which the suit for recovery preferred by the appellant-plaintiff

State had been dismissed being time barred.

2. The present appeal was preferred in the year 2018 with a

delay of 1180 days and an application under Section 5 of the

Limitation Act was preferred along with the appeal. After the

appeal being registered, none appeared for the appellant on

02.05.2019 and 09.05.2019, when the matter was listed before

the Court and therefore, the name of the Additional Advocate

General representing the Mining Department was directed to be

reflected in the cause list. Appearance was then put in by the

learned Additional Advocate General who, on 23.02.2021, sought

[2023/RJJD/016858] (2 of 4) [CFA-57/2018]

time to file an appropriate application/additional affidavit in

support of the application seeking condonation of delay in filing

the appeal. On 18.03.2021, time was again sought and the last

opportunity to do the needful was granted. On 19.04.2021, a

statement was made by learned counsel for the appellant that the

requisite additional affidavit was being filed during the course of

the day. Therefore, the same was directed to be tagged with the

appeal and the appeal was directed to be listed on the next date.

However, no such additional affidavit was filed and on 04.03.2022,

one last opportunity was again granted to the counsel to file the

additional affidavit. The same has not been filed till date and today

also, learned counsel for the appellant prayed for time to do the

needful.

3. In view of the facts as stated above, the prayer as made by

counsel cannot be entertained and the same is therefore, rejected.

The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as preferred

by the appellant is taken into consideration. The application as

preferred, does not speak of a single reason which can be termed

to be a reasonable or a sufficient cause so as to condone the delay

caused in filing the present appeal. Only a vague averment has

been made that after receipt of the certified copy of the judgment

and decree, the Officer-In-Charge contacted the Government

counsel on 03.01.2018 and thereafter, the present appeal was

prepared and the same was filed.

4. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Basawaraj & Ors.

Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81

held as under:-

[2023/RJJD/016858] (3 of 4) [CFA-57/2018]

"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 bonafide 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."

5. In the specific opinion of this Court, the application under

Section 5 of the Limitation Act as preferred by the appellant does

not spell out a single reason or a single fact as to why a huge

delay of 1180 days was caused in filing the present appeal. While

deciding the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the

Court is to reach to a conclusion whether the reasons as stated in

the application for the delay are reasonable and sufficient so as to

condone the delay? In the present application, there is no reason

whatsoever pleaded, what to say of reasonable and sufficient.

Moreover, the fact also becomes relevant when the suit of the

plaintiff was also dismissed on the ground of limitation. The

recovery sought in the suit pertained to the year 1988 whereas