- (1.) HEARD SriNaresh Chhabra,Advocate for the petitioner and Standing Counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 3.
(2.) BY the present writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 27-02-2006 passed by the Court of respondent No. 1 by way of reject ing the substitution application. Briefly stated, the objections under Section 9 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act were filed by the pe titioners. During the pendency of the case, the father of the respondents No. 4 and 5 Shri Shiv Poojan died on 02-03-1999 and an application for substitution was filed on 13th Decem ber, 1999 along with the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The petitioner has filed objection to that application. Both the courts below have re corded a finding that the cause for delay was sufficient and has con doned the delay for filing the substi tution application.
(3.) IT is well established that lib eral view should be taken while con doning the delay as the party is go ing to suffer on account of the delay. As held in the case of N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy Supreme Court & Full Bench Rent Cases, 1998 page 427, the Apex, Court has also held that liberal ap proach should be taken while con doning the delay in filing the appli cation. The observations of the Apex Court are quoted below: "rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. The law of limitation fixes a lifespan for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and wasted time would never revisit. During the efflux of time, newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a lifespan must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. IT is enshrined in the maxim interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to liti gation ). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every le gal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time. IT must be remembered that in every case of delay, there can be some lapse on the part of the liti gant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him. If the explanation does not smack of mala fides or it is not put forth as part of a dilatory strategy, the court must show utmost considera tion to the suitor. But when there is reasonable ground to think that the delay was occasioned by the party deliberately to gain time, then the court should lean against acceptance of the explanation. While condoning the delay, the court should not forget the oppo site party altogether. IT must be borne in mind that he is a loser and he too would have incurred quite large litigation expenses. IT would be a salutary guideline that when courts condone the delay due to laches on the part of the applicant, the court shall compen sate the opposite party for his loss. " The petitioner has argued that there was no application for setting aside the abatement order as abate ment was automatic.;