Delhi District Court
Umesh Yadav vs M C D on 5 December, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIMAL KUMAR YADAV
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
NORTH-WEST DISTRICT: ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
CNR No. DLNW01-006658-2023
MCD Appeal No. 01/23
Ajay Kumar Yadav
S/o Hukum Chand Yadav
R/o H.No. 272, Naharpur Village,
Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi ...Appellant
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Through its Commissioner
Civic Centre, S.P. Mukherjee Bhawan,
Minto Road, New Delhi-110002 ...Respondent
Date of institution : 18.07.2023
Date of Arguments : 05.12.2023
Date of Judgment : 05.12.2023
Appearance:
Appellant with Ld. Counsel Ms. Amita Singh Kalkal, Adv.,
through VC.
Sh. Tushar Ahuja, Adv. Ld. Counsel for MCD alongwith Sh.
Sumit, LI and Sh. Gaurav Chaturvedi, AO.
CNR No. DLNW01-006781-2023
MCD Appeal No. 02/23
Ajit Singh Yadav
S/o Rishal Singh Yadav
R/o A-274, Naharpur Village,
Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi ...Appellant
Versus
Page 1 of 15
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Through its Commissioner
Civic Centre, S.P. Mukherjee Bhawan,
Minto Road, New Delhi ...Respondent
Date of institution : 24.07.2023
Date of Arguments : 05.12.2023
Date of Judgment : 05.12.2023
Appearance:
Sh. Yugansh Mittal, Adv. Ld. Counsel for appellant, through VC.
Sh. Tushar Ahuja, Adv. Ld. Counsel for MCD alongwith Sh.
Sumit, LI and Sh. Gaurav Chaturvedi, AO.
CNR No. DLNW01-006782-2023
MCD Appeal No. 03/23
Jagbir Singh
S/o Duli Chand Yadav
R/o 186/A, Naharpur Village,
Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi-110085 ...Appellant
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Through its Commissioner
Civic Centre, S.P. Mukherjee Bhawan,
Minto Road, New Delhi ...Respondent
Date of institution : 24.07.2023
Date of Arguments : 05.12.2023
Date of Judgment : 05.12.2023
Appearance:
Sh. Yugansh Mittal, Adv. Ld. Counsel for appellant, through VC.
Ms. Vasu Singh, Adv. Ld. Counsel for MCD alongwith Sh.
Sumit, LI and Sh. Gaurav Chaturvedi, AO.
Page 2 of 15
CNR No. DLNW01-006783-2023
MCD Appeal No. 04/23
Umesh Yadav
S/o Daryao Singh Yadav
R/o 272/2, Naharpur Village,
Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi-110085 ...Appellant
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Through its Commissioner
Civic Centre, S.P. Mukherjee Bhawan,
Minto Road, New Delhi ...Respondent
Date of institution : 24.07.2023
Date of Arguments : 05.12.2023
Date of Judgment : 05.12.2023
Appearance:
Sh. Yugansh Mittal, Adv. Ld. Counsel for appellant, through VC.
Sh. Tushar Ahuja, Adv. Ld. Counsel for MCD alongwith Sh.
Sumit, LI and Sh. Gaurav Chaturvedi, AO.
CNR No. DLNW01-006734-2023
MCD Appeal No. 05/23
Dheeraj Yadav
S/o Daryao Singh Yadav
R/o 272/2, Naharpur Village,
Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi-110085 ...Appellant
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Through its Commissioner
Civic Centre, S.P. Mukherjee Bhawan,
Minto Road, New Delhi ...Respondent
Date of institution : 24.07.2023
Page 3 of 15
Date of Arguments : 05.12.2023
Date of Judgment : 05.12.2023
Appearance:
Sh. Yugansh Mittal, Adv. Ld. Counsel for appellant, through VC.
Sh. Tushar Ahuja, Adv. Ld. Counsel for MCD alongwith Sh.
Sumit, LI and Sh. Gaurav Chaturvedi, AO.
CNR No. DLNW01-006785-2023
MCD Appeal No. 06/23
Giriraj Singh Yadav
S/o Bahadur Singh
R/o F-272, Naharpur Village,
Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi-110085 ...Appellant
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Through its Commissioner
Civic Centre, S.P. Mukherjee Bhawan,
Minto Road, New Delhi ...Respondent
Date of institution : 24.07.2023
Date of Arguments : 05.12.2023
Date of Judgment : 05.12.2023
Appearance:
Sh. Yugansh Mittal, Adv. Ld. Counsel for appellant, through VC.
Sh. Tushar Ahuja, Adv. Ld. Counsel for MCD alongwith Sh.
Sumit, LI and Sh. Gaurav Chaturvedi, AO.
CNR No. DLNW01-006787-2023
MCD Appeal No. 07/23
Brahamjeet Yadav
S/o Rishal Singh Yadav
R/o B-274, Naharpur Village,
Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi-110085 ...Appellant
Page 4 of 15
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Through its Commissioner
Civic Centre, S.P. Mukherjee Bhawan,
Minto Road, New Delhi ...Respondent
Date of institution : 24.07.2023
Date of Arguments : 05.12.2023
Date of Judgment : 05.12.2023
Appearance:
Sh. Yugansh Mittal, Adv. Ld. Counsel for appellant, through VC.
Sh. Tushar Ahuja, Adv. Ld. Counsel for MCD alongwith Sh.
Sumit, LI and Sh. Gaurav Chaturvedi, AO.
JUDGMENT
Through this common judgment, seven appeals filed by appellants, are hereby disposed off.
2. The object of limitation law is to put a limit or boundary and to put finality but not to deprive the rights of someone. There are instances where delay of multiple years have been condoned. The Limitation Act is, thus, to limit but not prohibit or deprive people from relief, which is otherwise admissible but for the time gap/delay. Why would anyone delay especially when he is a sufferer? There must be some reason that too a cogent reason.
Page 5 of 153. The appellants are the shop owners which were either rented out by or they were running the shops. Evidently, it was a source of revenue and livelihood. Then why anybody would like or allow the source of revenue to be dried up? These shops were sealed by the MCD on the directives of National Green Tribunal (NGT). Pollution is a big issue in the world ruining the environment and in the long term the living world on this planet. The existence of the planet Earth is under jeopardy. Thus, the Courts and NGT stepped into check the pollution and various measures were put in place and closure of polluting units was one such measure. The shops were closed and that aggrieved the appellants whose livelihood or revenue got affected. They tried to have the shops de-sealed but their efforts could not bear fruit during all those years from 2018 to 2022 or so. Against the backdrop of these facts, the contention on behalf of the appellants gain ground that the appellants were trying to have their grievance redressed through NGT or the local representatives, may be under some ill advice, but then they were trying to resolve the issue as can be seen from the documents.
4. Incidentally, the period in question includes the period when the world practically came to a grinding halt and became standstill due to Corona Pandemic. It was such a dreading time that people had nothing left except saving their lives. The enormity of the Pandemic was realised by one and all and the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Court(s) came forward and passed order(s) touching the aspect of limitation and release of Page 6 of 15 the undertrials etc. suo moto, inter alia various other measures to tackle the Pandemic vis-a-vis the justice administration system.
5. Reference of the orders on limitation and release of the inmates lodged in jails including the office orders issued from time to time are given as below:
No. 35049-35118/Genl.I/F.3(A)/N-W & N/RC/2022 Delhi, dated 28.10.2022 (Subject: Order dated 19.10.2022 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Crl. A.No. 491/2022 titled Naresh Chand Jain v. State of NCT of Delhi at New Delhi & Anr.
Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 in re:
Cognizance for Extension of Limitation dated 08.03.2021 W.P.(C) 4921/2021 Court on its Own Motion v. State dated 13.08.2021 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi W.P.(C) 3037/2020 Court on its Own Motion v. State & Ors. dated 15.06.2020 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in re: Extension of Interim Orders W.P.(C) 3037/2020 Court on its Own Motion v. State & Ors. dated 13.07.2020 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in re: Extension of Interim Orders W.P.(C) 3037/2020 Court on its Own Motion v. State & Ors. dated 24.07.2020 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in re: Extension of Interim Orders W.P.(Crl.) 779/2020 Court on its Own Motion v. State dated 09.04.2020 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi Vide order dated 23.09.2021 in Misc. Application No. 665 of 2021 in SMW(C) No. 3 of 2020 regarding cognizance for extension of limitation, Hon'ble Supreme Court has passed directions that in computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, application or proceeding, the period from 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021 stood excluded.Page 7 of 15
6. It is, thus, evident that the Superior Courts were, as any court would have been, alive to the realities and practicalities, so much so, suo motu actions were initiated for the general good of people including litigating public and those associated with the system by evolving hybrid hearing etc.
7. It is true that in the instant case delay of about 3 years 7 months seems to be there, but then the appellants were not keeping quiet or were complacent rather they were running from pillar to post as were advised to have their properties de-sealed. In the intervening period, the appellants approached DPCC, local body (MCD) and NGT apart from others, as contended by the appellant and substantiated on record too. Initially, as stated, they tried to secure relief by approaching local authorities at different levels seemingly by implication some political forums too. When nothing came out then other remedies were taken up including the DPCC and NGT. The MCD too was approached and the applications are there on record to that effect.
8. At least one of the appellants, who was suffering from some medical ailments and is a senior citizen, who was deprived of kind of agility, ability and activeness, which otherwise a young person would have had and that according to him had further prevented him from taking up the matter at the earliest.
9. All these go on to show that the appellants were not sitting idle and to the best of their ability, it seems, they were Page 8 of 15 approaching different authorities, but nothing came out. It is contended that assurances were extended by the MCD officials that something would be done which further fueled their hopes that something would come out and the matter would be resolved there itself. When nothing came out, then only the other remedies were searched and pursued which included approaching the Delhi Pollution Control Committee and the National Green Tribunal etc. At the beginning of year 2020 in March, the Corona Pandemic struck and lockdown was put in force. The impact of the worldwide Pandemic was such which practically confined everybody to their homes and all activities except which were extremely urgent and indispensable in nature, were being somehow managed to be carried out. That too with the help of the skeleton manpower. Before the world could or for that matter India could emerge from first wave of Pandemic, the second wave struck and struck so badly that it sent shivers down the spine of everyone as the casualties were high, availability of medical facilities ran out of strength and capacity, people were lying outside the hospital without medical aids so much so that the oxygen supply was not available at some hospitals and there are instances that people died because of non-availability of medical facilities and oxygen. There is at least one instance where entire nursing home was deserted by the doctors and the medical staff because of their helplessness. When the people reached there, they found dead bodies in the nursing home lying on beds, presumably lack of medical aid/oxygen was the reason. Against such a scenario, people were not concerned with Page 9 of 15 anything else except their life and the lives of their near and dear ones. The enormity of the matter was realized by the courts as well and certain orders, as referred herein before, suo motu by the Apex Court and the High Court came to be passed. One such order relating to the computation of period of limitation for any suit, appeal, application or proceeding was there according to which the period from 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021 was to be excluded and the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Misc. Application No. 665 of 2021 in SMW(C) No. 3 of 2020 are worth noting:
"I. In computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, application or proceeding, the period from 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021 shall stand excluded. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 15.03.2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 03.10.2021.
II. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 03.10.2021. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 03.10.2021, is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply.
III. The period from 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.
IV. The Government of India shall amend the guidelines for containment zones, to state.Page 10 of 15
"Regulated movement will be allowed for medical emergencies, provision of essential goods and services, and other necessary functions, such as, time bound applications, including for legal purposes, and educational and job-related requirements."
10. Apart from that, another enormous situation would emerge in the litigant would not get an opportunity to speed his or her case and that the courts are touching the merits, disposed off a case on purely technical aspects such as limitation. Such a situation is to be avoided unless compelled by such circumstances which do not leave any scope for any kind of indulgence to be given.
11. Section 5 of the Limitation Act provides the doctrine of sufficient cause for condonation of delay and if a party is able to show that there was a sufficient cause which prevented him from availing the opportunity then the delay is to be condoned. The law of limitation has been liberally interpreted and delay running into years have been condoned by the courts where it was found that it is reasonable, appropriate and needed. The period is not significant and important as compared to the reason. If there are reasons or say sufficient cause then longer periods have been condoned and if the reasons are not there and flimsy then even a lesser period has not been condoned. Thus, the factors coming into play are sufficiency of the cause which prevented a party to avail a legal remedy and that takes into account the whole gamut of facts and circumstances under which a person was placed which resulted into the delay.
Page 11 of 1512. In a recent decision titled as Sheo Raj Singh (deceased) through LRs & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. Civil Appeal No. 5867/2015 decided on 09.10.2023, Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken into consideration the whole gamut of the authorities on the subject, Balwant Singh (Dead) v. Jagdish Singh & Ors. (2010) 8 SCC 685, University of Delhi v. Union of India & Ors. (2020) 13 SCC 745, Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 107, State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO & Ors. (2005) 3 SCC 752, Lanka Venkateswarlu (Dead) v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (2011) 4 SCC 363, Postmaster General & Ors. v. Living Media India Limited & Anr. (2012) 3 SCC 563, Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy & Ors. (2013) 12 SCC 649, State of Manipur & Ors. v. Koting Lamkang (2019) 10 SCC 408, G. Ramegowda v. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer (1988) 2 SCC 142, State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani (1996) 3 SCC 132, Special Tehsildar, Land Acquisition v. K.V. Ayisumma (1996) 10 SCC 634, Manjunath Anandappa v. Tammanasa (2003) 10 SCC 390, Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha (1980) 2 SCC 593, State of M.P. v. Bherulal (2020) 10 SCC 654, where in one case, the delay of four days was not condoned but in another case a delay of 2449 days was condoned, and it was observed in the following words:
"29. Considering the aforementioned decisions, there cannot be any quarrel that this Court has stepped in to ensure that substantive rights of private parties and the State are not defeated at the threshold simply due to Page 12 of 15 technical considerations of delay. However, these decisions notwithstanding, we reiterate that condonation of delay being a discretionary power available to courts, exercise of discretion must necessarily depend upon the sufficiency of the cause shown and the degree of acceptability of the explanation, the length of delay being immaterial. Sometimes, due to want of sufficient cause being shown or an acceptable explanation being proffered, delay of the shortest range may not be condoned whereas, in certain other cases, delay of long periods can be condoned if the explanation is satisfactory and acceptable."
13. In the instant case, a period of about two years is otherwise to be taken out of the consideration because of the Covid Pandemic. It is not that people were affected during the said period only as its repercussions are even felt today. People had suffered in various manners. Therefore, when it cannot be said that the appellants were consciously and deliberately sitting over the matters and were not trying to have their recourse whatever was available to them or advised to them then in that circumstances, would it be appropriate to not grant them an opportunity to put across their case on merits on the grounds of delay only. What the appellants stand to gain by delaying has the answer to most of the aspects that they deserved to be heard on merits. The shops were fetching rent to them and by having the same sealed indefinitely what would they stand to gain rather they are at the receiving end. The livelihood of tenants were affected too including their families. In such circumstances, when the conscious and deliberate delay stands ruled out then efforts put in by them by approaching various authorities and finally the Appellate Tribunal MCD, as per the advice received Page 13 of 15 by them creates reasons where they deserve a proper hearing and adjudication. They are all laymen and not technically equipped to go through the intricacies of the legal provisions, therefore, they had to rely on somebody who is trained in this field and they seemingly followed their advice. In such circumstances, how can they be blamed for any kind of lethargy or inactiveness.
14. The Ld. Appellate Tribunal MCD has not dealt with the contentions put forth by the appellants. The medical conditions of one of the appellants and the applications moved before the Deputy Commissioner, MCD or approaching the DPCC or going before the NGT or approaching the Hon'ble High Court are all reflective of the efforts put in by appellants.
15. Although the merits of the case are not being touched in this judgment but then the status report filed by the MCD before the Appellate Tribunal reflects that the premises of the appellants were sealed primarily rather solely because no reply to the notice of the MCD was given by them. It is interesting to note that in the annexure to the status report filed by the MCD before the AT MCD reflected that all these appellants or their tenants were dealing in car seat covers or batteries or car accessories. It is not the case and seemingly it cannot be that selling or stocking of such articles would be causing any environmental pollution.
16. In view of the foregoing discussion, when the Ld. Trial Court has not given any consideration to aforesaid facts while Page 14 of 15 considering the application u/s.5 Limitation Act, therefore, the impugned order dated 26.05.2023 cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the same is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the AT MCD to consider it afresh on merits and dispose it off at the earliest possible. Parties to appear before the AT MCD on 18.12.2023.
17. The record be sent back to the Appellate Tribunal, MCD with copy of this judgment. Appeal files be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced in the open court today : 5th December, 2023 VIMAL Digitally by VIMAL signed KUMAR YADAV KUMAR Date:
YADAV 2023.12.08 12:51:43 +0530 (Vimal Kumar Yadav) Principal District & Sessions Judge (NW) Rohini Courts, Delhi (sb) Page 15 of 15