Tripura High Court
In State (Nct Of Delhi) vs Ahmed Jaan (2008) 14 Scc on 22 August, 2019
Author: Sanjay Karol
Bench: Sanjay Karol
Page 1 of 3
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
I.A No.1/2019 in RFA No.12/2019
For Applicant(s) : Mr. D. R. Chowdhury, Advocate.
Mr. S. Sarkar, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Advocate.
Mr. B.Saha, Advocate.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KAROL
ORDER
22/08/2019 Heard.
This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay of 1359 days in preferring the connected appeal arising out of an impugned Judgment & decree dated 01.08.2018 passed by the ld. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No.2, West Tripura, Agartala in TS No.74 of 2008 titled as Sri Bimal Saha @ Bimal Kanti Saha Vrs. Sri Ratan Debnath and other.
Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties as also perused the records so made available this Court is of the considered view that there is no deliberate or intentional delay in filing the appeal, which occurred on account of bona fide reasons, as stated in the application.
In State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Ahmed Jaan (2008) 14 SCC 582 the Court has held that "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."Page 2 of 3
The above principle of law was further reiterated more explicitly by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ummer vs. Pottengal Subida and Ors. (2018) 15 SCC 127 wherein the Court held that "One cannot now dispute the legal proposition that the earlier view of this Court that the Appellant was required to explain the delay of each day till the date of filing the appeal has since been diluted by the later decisions of this Court and is, therefore, held as no longer good law."
The principle which thus can be fairly deduced is that the Court should not get into technicality and in seeking explanation for delay of each and every day from the defaulting party.
It stands explained in para-5 of the application that on 12.04.2019 an application was filed for having the certificate copy of order dated 09.04.2019 passed in T.A. 35 of 2015 and on 03.05.2019, after having the certified copy, the clerk met the concerned advocate who was conducting the proceeding and also informed about the receipt of the certified copy, thereafter, the counsel for the applicant-appellant prepared the memo of appeal but could not be preferred for want of certified true copy of the judgment and decree. On 07.05.2019 another application was filed for getting the true certified copy of the judgment and decree dated 01.08.2015 and same was received on 04.06.2019. After having the certified copy counsel for the applicant-appellant prepared the memo of appeal along with the condonation petition but the Hon'ble High Court remained closed for summer vacation since 03.06.2019. I find that after receipt of the certified copy of Page 3 of 3 the judgment and decree, learned counsel immediately filed the present appeal.
Upon perusal of facts and hearing of parties, and taking into consideration the observations of the Apex Court (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal. The matter was being persuaded before a forum which granted permission to withdraw with liberty.
Therefore having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the cause shown by the applicant, which is duly substantiated by the presentation of relevant documents and the accompanying affidavit, this Court is inclined to hold that the cause shown by the applicant seeking condoning of delay in filing the appeal before this High Court is a sufficient cause, within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act and, therefore, the application filed by the applicant deserves to be allowed. Application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
As such, in the interest of justice, delay is condoned.
(SANJAY KAROL),CJ.
Dipankar