PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LIMITED Vs. VINEET MATHUR
Parsvnath Developers Limited
Click here to view full judgement.
Deepa Sharma, J. -
(1.) The present First Appeal has been filed against the order dated 21.05.2018 of the State Commission in complaint no. 251 of 2013 of respondent nos. 1 & 2. Since, the Appeal has been filed with delay of 348 days, an application being IA No. 9483 of 2019 has been filed for condonation of delay in filing the Appeal. The arguments of learned counsel for the appellant have been heard on this application. My order on the application is as under:
IA No. 9483 of 2019 (condonation of delay)
1. It is argued by counsel for the appellant that delay had occurred since the appellant became aware of the order dated 21.05.2018 only in April 2019 accidentally when the counsel had gone to the State Commission for attending other matter of the appellant and chanced upon to see the cause list and learnt that execution petitions were pending. Thereafter, an application for certified copy was filed immediately and certified copy of impugned order was received on 03.06.2019. The appeal was drafted thereafter and was filed on 06.06.2019. It is submitted that delay had occurred due to these reasons and was not intentional.
(2.) It is settled proposition of law that condonation of delay is not a matter of right. The applicant is required to give sufficient causes while seeking condonation of delay. Sufficient causes means that party had acted diligently and bonafidely but where party is said to have not acted diligently and remained inactive, it cannot be said that party had sufficient causes for condonation of delay. It is also settled proposition of law that limitation may harshly effect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes.
(3.) In the case of Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, 1962 AIR(SC) 361, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that condonation of delay is a discretionary jurisdiction and has to be exercised in appropriate cases. Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that where the party has not acted diligently and bonafidely, such a discretion should not be exercised in its favour. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"12. It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant.";
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.