Delhi District Court
Delhi Development Authority vs Sardar Jasbir Singh Sethi & Ors on 9 January, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. BALWANT RAI BANSAL,
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE02 (SOUTHEAST),
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
MCA No. 2/14
Delhi Development Authority
..... Appellant
Vs.
Sardar Jasbir Singh Sethi & Ors.
..... Respondents
O R D E R
1. Vide this order I shall dispose of an application u/s 5 of Limitation Act moved by the appellant.
2. It is stated in the application that appellant came to know about the impugned order dated 22.11.2003 on 12.12.2013 after receiving the file from the panel lawyer. The counsel for the appellant/DDA applied for the certified copy of the impugned order on 05.12.2013 which was received only on 09.12.2013. After receipt of the certified copy, the counsel for appellant sent the certified copy of the impugned order along with the case file to the department for scrutiny on 12.12.2013 and for taking necessary instructions for filing the appeal against the impugned order. After scrutinizing the case file and impugned order by the department, opinion and instructions were sought from the higher authorities through the official channel and the file MCA No. 2/14 DDA Vs. S. Jasbir Singh Sethi & Ors. Page 1 of 6 moved from table to table and from one official to another in order to obtain the necessary sanction/permission for filing the appeal including the law department of the DDA. Thereafter, upon receipt of the instructions from the department, the counsel for the DDA drafted the appeal on 03.02.2014 and the file was sent back to the department for scrutiny of the appeal which was approved and returned to the counsel for finalization. The counsel after finalizing the appeal got signed the same from the concerned official of DDA and filed the present appeal on 28.02.2014 and there is unavoidable delay of 62 days. It is stated that delay in filing the appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the aforesaid reasons and if the delay is not condoned, the appellant would suffer irreparable loss and injury. Therefore, it has been prayed that delay in filing the appeal may be condoned.
3. The respondent no. 1 contested the application by filing the reply contending that the appellant is legally bound to disclose the delay of each and every day of delay in filing the appeal, which has not been done by the appellant. It is further contended that it was the duty of the appellant to remain in touch with the case proceedings and the appellant without disclosing any lawful, legal and valid justification of the delay has filed the present appeal which is time barred and is liable to be dismissed. The respondent no. 1 has further contended that appellant is a Government autonomous body which is supposed to maintain all record of their contentions, but the appellant has not placed on record any such MCA No. 2/14 DDA Vs. S. Jasbir Singh Sethi & Ors. Page 2 of 6 document or notification of their departmental proceeding in support of its contention that filed moved from table to table and from one official to another for obtaining the sanction in filing the appeal. The respondent no. 1 has prayed for dismissal of the application.
4. The respondents no. 2 and 3 have not filed reply to the application. The respondent no. 2 has not opposed the application, however the respondent no. 3 opposed the application on the similar grounds as taken by respondent no. 1.
5. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.
6. The present appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 22.11.2013 passed by Ld. Addl. Senior Civil Judge, (South East), Saket Courts, New Delhi on 01.03.2014 and there is delay of 62 days in filing the appeal. The aforesaid delay is sought to be condoned by the appellant on the ground that appellant is a Government body and it has to pass through hierarchical system for obtaining the sanction for filing appeal which took some time resulting in delay in filing the appeal.
7. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana Vs. Chandra Mani & Ors (1996) 3 SCC 132 that, "Section 5 of the Limitation Act gives power to the court to admit the appeal or application after the prescribed period. The Supreme Court generally MCA No. 2/14 DDA Vs. S. Jasbir Singh Sethi & Ors. Page 3 of 6 adopts a liberal approach in condonation of delay finding somewhat sufficient cause to decide the appeal on merits. When the State is an applicant, praying for condonation of delay, it is common knowledge that on account of impersonal machinery and the inherited bureaucratic methodology imbued with the notemaking, file pushing, and passing on the buck ethos, delay on the part of the State is less difficult to understand though more difficult to approve, but the State represents collective cause of the community. Considerable delay of procedural redtape in the process of their making decision is a common feature. Therefore, certain amount of latitude is not impermissible. If the appeal brought by the State are lost for such default no person is individually affected but what in the ultimate analysis suffers, is public interest. The expression "sufficient cause" should, therefore, be considered with pragmatism in justice oriented approach rather than the technical detection of sufficient cause for explaining every day's delay. The court should decide the matters on merits unless the case is hopelessly without merit." It was further observed that, "In the event of decision to file appeal needed prompt action should be pursued by the officer responsible to file the appeal and he should be made personally responsible for lapses, if any. Equally, the State cannot be put on the same footing as an individual. The individual would always be quick in taking the decision whether he would pursue the remedy by way of an MCA No. 2/14 DDA Vs. S. Jasbir Singh Sethi & Ors. Page 4 of 6 appeal or application since he is a person legally injured while State is an impersonal machinery working through its officers or servants".
8. Similarly, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Babu Lal Yadav Vs. R.S. Yadav & Co. & Anr. 167 (2010) DLT 664 held that, "It is trite that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the Court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not prescribe that such a discretion can be exercised by the Court only if the delay is for a certain period of time, rather the length of delay is hardly relevant. What is to be considered is the explanation offered for the delay. Thus each case has to be examined in its own facts and as long as there is a satisfactory explanation offered for the delay, the Court is well within its powers to accept the explanation and condone the delay."
9. In Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation Vs. Sainsons Fibres (P) Ltd. & Ors 168 (2010) DLT 574 (DB), it has been held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that, "If in a case, sufficient cause for delay is shown by the applicant and particularly in cases where State or Government Corporations are the parties concerned, the Courts generally adopt a liberal approach in condoning the delay by showing certain amount of latitude. It is also a settled law that the expression "sufficient cause" should, therefore, be considered with pragmatism and with a justiceoriented approach rather than a hypertechnical approach, scrutinizing and demanding explanation for every day's delay MCA No. 2/14 DDA Vs. S. Jasbir Singh Sethi & Ors. Page 5 of 6 in order to detect "sufficient cause". However, the Appellant has to satisfy prima facie some case of sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the application along with the appeal."
10. Of course, there is no such document or notification placed on record by the appellant as contended by respondent no. 1 to show that delay was due to the hierarchical system of the department in getting the sanction/permission in filing the appeal. But in view of law laid down in the authorities cited supra, since the appellant is a Government department and it has to pass through hierarchical system to obtain the sanction for filing the appeal, in my considered opinion, the appellant has shown sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal. Furthermore, there is no inordinate delay in filing the appeal and in view of the law laid down in the authorities cited supra, the delay in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned subject to cost of Rs. 2500/ payable to the each of the contesting respondents.
Announced in open Court (Balwant Rai Bansal)
on 9th January, 2015 Addl. District Judge 02 (SouthEast)
Saket Courts, New Delhi
MCA No. 2/14
DDA Vs. S. Jasbir Singh Sethi & Ors. Page 6 of 6
MCA No. 2/14
DDA Vs. S. Jasbir Singh Sethi & Ors.
09.01.2015
Present: None.
Vide my separate order of even date, the application moved by the appellant u/s 5 of Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal is allowed.
Now, to come up for arguments on the appeal on 05.02.2015.
(Balwant Rai Bansal) ADJ02/SE/Saket/New Delhi 09.01.2015 MCA No. 2/14 DDA Vs. S. Jasbir Singh Sethi & Ors. Page 7 of 6