Delhi District Court
Sohan Lal Arora vs . South Delhi Municipal Corporation on 26 May, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEEPAK SHERAWAT, JSCC-CUM-
ASCJ-CUM-GUARDIAN JUDGE(WEST): DELHI
SUIT NO. 38/13
Sohan Lal Arora Vs. South Delhi Municipal Corporation
& Ors.
ORDER
26.05.2016
1. Vide this order, I shall decide the application under Order 47 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 & 152 CPC alongwith an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the review application moved on behalf of the plaintiff.
2. An application under Order 47 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 & 152 CPC alongwith application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff. In the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, it is stated that the impugned order was passed on 02.12.2014 and the review application was filed on 05.02.2015 beyond the limitation period which fact came into the knowledge of the counsel on 28.04.2016 during the course of arguments. Earlier, the present counsel has filed the vakalatnama on 31.10.2015 and case was adjourned to 19.12.2015 and subsequently, on 02.02.2016, 06.02.2016 and 24.02.2016 for arguments on the review application of the plaintiff. It is stated in the application that previous counsel of the plaintiff applied for certified copy of the impugned order on 17.01.2015 after Suit No. 38/13 1/3 repeated request of plaintiff. The court also remained closed for winter vacation. The certified copy of the order was received on 27.01.2015. It is further stated that the time taken for certified copy was for 10 days which is required to be excluded from the limitation period and thereafter delay of 24 days remains.
3. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
4. Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the delay in filing any application may be condoned by the court if certain sufficient cause is offered by the parties for the delay. Where an application has been presented in the court beyond the limitation period, the application has to explain the court as to what was the sufficient cause which means an adequate and enough reason which presented the applicant to approach the court within the limitation and if the applicant is found to be negligent, or for want of bonafide on its part or he is found to have not acted diligently, there cannot be any justified ground to condone the delay. In the present application, the applicant/plaintiff has not bothered to putforward any reason which may be termed as sufficient cause to explain as to how he was prevented from moving the application of review within the limitation period of one month. Infact, the applicant has admitted that there is delay of 24 days but he has not explained any reason for said delay. The application of the applicant of condonation of delay can be decided only within the parameter regarding the condonation of delay and since the applicant has failed to purforward any sufficient cause. There is no justification in condonation of delay. Therefore, the application is dismissed. Application under Order 47 Rule Suit No. 38/13 2/3 1 read with Section 151 & 152 CPC is also dismissed being barred by limitation.
Announced in the open Court
today the 26th May, 2016 (DEEPAK SHERAWAT)
JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum
Guardian Judge (West),Delhi
26.05.2016
Suit No. 38/13
3/3