Delhi District Court
Rca No. 13/15 vs Shri Ram Parvesh on 11 August, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SHRI TARUN SAHRAWAT,
ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
RCA NO. 13/15
SHRI BIDUL CHAUDHARY
SON OF SHRI MAHI CHAND CHAUDHARY
GALI NO. 7, SURENDER COLONY PART-II
JHARODA EXTN., DELHI-110084
...........APPELLANT
Versus.
SHRI RAM PARVESH
SON OF SHRI DAYA RAM
R/O GALI NO. 10, SURENDER COLONY PART-II
JHARODA EXTN,, DELHI-110084
.........RESPONDENT
Date of Institution :14.07.2015
Date of arguments :11.08.2015
Date of judgment :11.08.2015
O R D E R /JUDGMENT
1) By this order I shall dispose of an application made on behalf of the
appellant under section 5 of Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the present appeal.
2) It is stated in the application that after passing the impugned judgment and decree dated 14.10.2014, the appellant instructed his previous counsel to file the appeal against the impugned judgment and decree, however, on 14.01.2015, when he approached his previous counsel he was told that the instructions given to his counsel were slipped from his memory. With these submissions, the appellant has prayed for condonation of delay of 223 days in filing the present appeal.
3) Having heard the arguments and perused the record, I find that the impugned judgment was passed by the ld. Trial Court on 14.10.2014 and the present appeal has been filed on 13.07.2012. As per appellant's own version, he got certified copy of the impugned judgment and decree within the period of ten days after applying of the same and also that there is a delay of 223 day in filing the present appeal. In my considered view the appellant has not been able to explain the sufficient cause for delay in filing the present appeal. Firstl, I find it a vague ground for seeking the condonation of delay in filing the present appeal that the instructions from the appellant were slipped from the memory of his previous counsel. Secondly, even if, the appellant's submission assumed as correct, in that case also after having known the fact that counsel had forgotten the instructions to file the appeal, the appellant after obtaining the certified copy of the impugned judgment/decree took around six months time to file the present appeal, which is not explained anywhere in the present application. Further, during the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the appellant has not been able to show any justifiable ground for seeking condonation of delay in filing the present appeal.
4) In the case of M/s Narayan Dass R. Israni v. Union of India DRJ 1992 ( 22) (supra) our own Hon'ble High Court held that:
"Each day of delay has to be explained"
5) Similarly, in the case of Democratic Building v. Union of India AIR 1993 Del 132 it was observed as under:
"The sufficient cause contemplated by s.5 of the Limitation Act means a cause beyond the control of the party invoking the aid of the section"
6) Also in the case of Steel Authority of India v. R.N. Dutta AIR 1984 Cal 118 it was held that:
"The appellant has to prove that he was diligent and has to explain each day's delay from the last date of limitation".
7) In the light of above discussion, it is evident that appellant was not at all serious/diligent in filing the present appeal within the prescribed period. Though, it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of cases that the expression "every day's delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic view should be taken but the doctrine must be applied in a rational, common sense or pragmatic manner. However, in the present case, the appellant has not at all been able to show any plausible ground for seeking condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. Negligence or inaction on part of the appellant is clearly seen and it seems that the appellant has adopted the dilatory strategy in filing the present appeal. Thus, the application made by the appellant under section 5 of the Limitation Act, having no merit is dismissed.
8) Further, since the delay in filing the present appeal has not been condoned by this order, therefore, the present appeal also cannot be entertained, hence, is dismissed.
9) Trial Court record alongwith copy of this order be sent back to the ld. Trial Court.
Appeal file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (TARUN SAHRAWAT) today i.e. 11.08.2015 ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE CENTRAL-4, TIS HAZARI COURTS,DELHI