Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sanjeev Babbar And Ors. vs Dev Papers Pvt. Ltd. on 12 February, 1998
Equivalent citations: (1998)118PLR814
Author: Swatanter Kumar
Bench: Swatanter Kumar
JUDGMENT Swatanter Kumar, J.
1. Vide order dated 29.2.1996 learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Rohtak, dismissed the application of the petitioner, under Order 15 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying for striking off the defence of the defendant in the proceedings. While dismissing this application the learned Court held as under :-
"In the present case, defendant has offered to tender the rent and deposited the same and more-over on two dates of hearing the members of the bar have suspended the work due to heavy flood. There is no dispute over the fact that there was heavy flood in the month of September, 1995 in the City Rohtak and it was not possible for the litigants to come to the Court and for this reason Bar has suspended the work and naturally for the unavoidable circumstances the parties could not be allowed to suffer. Mr. R.P. Gupta, Adv. has also cited Kumar Medical Agencies v. Smt. Nirmal and Ors., 1994 H.R.R. 41. According to this ruling the court may strike off the defence on account of non compliance with the provisions of Order 15 Rule 5 CPC but it does pot mean that it should be applied mechanically. In this ruling Hon'ble High Court has granted one month time to the petitioner to deposit the rent while in the case in hand, total amount has been paid though delayed as discussed earlier but that was due to heavy flood etc."
"In view of this, application under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC has no merits and the same is hereby dismissed."
It is this order of the learned trial Court which has been assailed in this revision.
2. The revision as filed by the petitioner was barred by time. C.M. No. 13140 of 1997 was filed for condonation of delay of 67 days in filing the revision. Another application being C.M. No. 13141 of 1997 was filed for condonation of delay in re-filing the revision for 239 days. As the petition is barred by time, it is necessary for this Court to deal with this application (C.M. No. 13140 of 1997) without going into the merits of the case.
3. This application lacks all material particulars. It has not been stated when the certified copy of the judgment was applied for and when the revision petition was filed Paragraph No. 2 of the application gives no sufficient cause for condonation of delay which could be accepted in consonance with the settled principles of law governing such a subject. The Court could be liberal in condoning the delay provided sufficient, reasonable and genuine cause is shown to exist for such affair.
4. In order to find out the sufficiency of the cause, it will be pertinent to note certain dates which can be collected from the various documents, which are available on record including the objection slips of the Registry of the High Court. The order was pronounced on 29.2.1996. Application for obtaining the certified copy of this order was made on 22.3.1996. The copy was ready on 3.4.1996. The revision (alleged to be revision petition) was filed on 1.7.1996. As no grounds for revision were filed, the Registry could not have treated the same as revision petition, it returned the papers on 3.7.1996. The grounds of revision were prepared and filed for the first time under the garb of re-filing on 3.4.1997. At that stage also application for condonation of delay and other necessary documents had not been filed. As such the registry again returned the revision on 1.6.1997. Thereafter it was re-filed on 7.10.1997 when the Registry again returned the same for want of affidavit in support of application for condonation of delay of delay. Thereafter it was finally re-filed on 28.11.1997.
5. As is clear from the above facts that the present petitioner has been most negligent and irresponsible in pursuing his remedy. The revision petition as originally filed was barred by time as is clear from the afore-stated dates. In fact no revision was filed. It was only some papers with the impugned order which were filed without any grounds of revision as required under law. Even the requisite Court-fees was not levied. When a petition becomes barred by time, a right accrues to the other party and such a right cannot be taken away by the Court merely on an application which lacks bonafides and does not disclose any sufficient cause for condonation of delay. In the present case, the revision itself may be barred not only by 67 days, but even more, because after its return on 3.7.1996 it was refiled on 3.44997 with grounds of revision. The delay in filing as well as in re-filing has not been explained in any of the applications. It is unfortunate, but is true, that present case discloses the extent to which a petitioner can be irresponsible and negligent of his own rights. The provisions of Limitation Act cannot be so liberally construed so as to frustrate the very purpose of the provisions of the Limitation Act. In this regard reference can be made to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala and Anr., J.T. 1997(8) S.C. 189, where the Hon'ble Court held as under:-
" Law of limitation may harshly effect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribe and the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The discretion exercised by the High Court was, thus, neither proper nor judicious. The order condoning the delay cannot be sustained. This appeal, therefore, succeeds and the impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay filed in the High Court would stand rejected and the Miscellaneous First Appeal shall stand dismissed as barred by time. No costs."
6. Applying the principles enunciated, which in fact which been re-iterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India form time to time, I have no hesitation in holding that the delay in filing as well as re-filing the petition has not been explained nor there exists any cause, much less a sufficient cause, for condoning the said delay. Consequently, this revision petition is dismissed on the ground of limitation alone.