Rakesh Singh v. Delhi Transport Corporation

Delhi High Court · 27 Sep 2018 · 2019:DHC:4982-DB

G. S. Sistani; Anup Jairam Bhambhani

LPA 584/2019

2019:DHC:4982-DB

civil appeal_dismissed Significant

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appellant's application for condonation of a 3395-day delay in filing an appeal, holding that financial hardship alone does not constitute sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Full Text

LPA 584/2019
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of

JUDGMENT

: 27th September, 2019

LPA 584/2019
RAKESH SINGH ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Kishore Kumar Patel, Advocate

versus

DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION ..... Respondent
Through: Mrs.Avnish Ahlawat, Standing counsel for DTC with Mr.Nitesh
Singh, Advt.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)

CM.APPL 40354/2019 (delay)

1. This is an application filed by the appellant seeking condonation of 3395 days delay in filing the present appeal. Mr. Kishore Kumar Patel, counsel for the appellant submits that the delay in filing the appeal was for cogent, bona fide reasons and not on account of any inaction or negligence on the part of the appellant. The counsel submits that the ground for delay is that the appellant was unemployed and therefore suffering from financial hardship.

2. We have heard the counsel for the appellant and examined the application seeking condonation of delay.

3. The application does not inspire confidence. We are not satisfied that the delay is on account of bonafide reasons. Reading of the application would show that the same is highly casual in nature, is devoid of any material particulars, is vague and does not disclose any 2019:DHC:4982-DB cause much less sufficient cause for the delay in filing the present appeal. The Supreme Court of India has repeatedly held that the expression “sufficient cause” in Section 5 of the Limitation Act should be given a liberal interpretation to advance substantial justice. It has also been repeatedly held that length of delay is not to be considered provided the explanation is genuine and the delay was caused for sufficient reasons.

4. In the case of Brijesh Kumar & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., reported at AIR 2014 SC 1612, the Apex Court has held as under:

“11. The courts should not adopt an injustice-oriented approach in rejecting the application for condonation of delay. However, the court while allowing such application has to draw a distinction between delay and inordinate delay for want of bona fides of an inaction or negligence would deprive a party of the protection of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Sufficient cause is a condition precedent for exercise of discretion by the Court for condoning the delay. This Court has time and again held that when mandatory provision is not complied with and that delay is not properly, satisfactorily and convincingly explained, the court cannot condone the delay on sympathetic grounds alone. 12. It is also a well settled principle of law that if some person has taken a relief approaching the Court just or immediately after the cause of action had arisen, other persons cannot take benefit thereof approaching the court at a belated stage for the reason that they cannot be permitted to take the impetus of the order passed at the behest of some diligent person. 13. In State of Karnataka & Ors. v. S.M. Kotrayya & Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 267, this Court rejected the contention that a petition should be considered ignoring the delay and laches on the ground that he filed the petition just after coming to know of the relief granted by the Court in a similar case as the same cannot furnish a proper explanation for delay and laches. The Court observed that such a plea is wholly

unjustified and cannot furnish any ground for ignoring delay and laches.

14. Same view has been reiterated by this Court in Jagdish Lal & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., AIR 1997 SC 2366, observing as under:– “Suffice it to state that appellants kept sleeping over their rights for long and elected to wake-up when they had the impetus from Vir Pal Chauhan and Ajit Singh’s ratios…Therefore desperate attempts of the appellants to re-do the seniority, held by them in various cadre.... are not amenable to the judicial review at this belated stage. The High Court, therefore, has rightly dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay as well.”

5. Applying the settled law to the facts of the present case, we find that the appellant has failed to either plead or establish sufficient cause for the condonation of delay. The only ground raised for condonation of delay is that the appellant was not employed and was suffering from financial hardship. This, in our view, is not reason enough to condone the delay in the absence of any details. Accordingly, we find no grounds to entertain the application.

6. The application is dismissed.

7. Since the application seeking condonation of delay has been dismissed, the appeal is also dismissed. G.S.SISTANI, J. ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J. SEPTEMBER 27, 2018

Rakesh Singh v. Delhi Transport Corporation

AI Summary

Full Text

JUDGMENT

Contact Us for a Free Consultation