Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Learned Counsel further submits that, the term "sufficient cause" as contemplated under Section 5 of the Limitation Act even if it is to receive liberal construction it must comply with concept of reasonable time and proper conduct of concerned party. In support of this contention, learned Counsel appearing for the revision applicant placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Balwant Singh (dead) vs. Jagdish Singh & others, reported in 2010(6) ALL MR 480. Learned Counsel further invited my attention to the judgment of this Court in the case of Laxman N. Divekar vs. State of 9 CRA97.05 Maharashtra, reported in A.I.R. 1998 Bombay 176 and submitted that, limitation is prescribed by law and the said provision has to be applied without carving separate standards, equally to all litigants, be it the State or private party.

. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents invited my attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of G. Ramegowda, Major etc. vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore, reported in A.I.R. 1998 SC 897 and submitted that, the expression 'sufficient cause' in Section 5 of the Limitation Act must receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice and generally delays in preferring appeals are required to be condoned in the interest of justice where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafides is imputable to the party seeking condonation of 16 CRA97.05 delay. He further invited my attention to the another judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Ahmed Jaan, reported in AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 695 and submitted that, the expression 'sufficient cause' should received a liberal construction. He further invited my attention to the judgment of this Court in the case of Ghyanchand s/o Lalchand vs. Municipal Corporation, Dhule, reported in 2009 (3) Mh.L.J. 317, and submitted that, the discretion exercised by the Court in condoning the delay would not ordinarily be disturbed by the Superior Court much less in revisional jurisdiction unless the exercise of discretion was wholly on untenable grounds or arbitrary or perverse. Learned Counsel further submitted that, in the present case, after condonation of delay by the lower appellate Court, the appeal is registered and further it is placed for arguments. Therefore, this Court may not interfere at this stage and reject this Civil Revision Application.

. It is true that, term "sufficient cause"

under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive liberal construction, however, it is equally true that, it must comply with concept of reasonable time and proper conduct of concerned party. In the instant case, as stated earlier, no any detail particulars are provided by the respondents. The Supreme Court in the case of Balwant Singh (dead) vs. Jagdish Singh & others (supra) in para-13 held thus:

"The purpose of introducing liberal construction normally is to introduce the concept of 'reasonableness' as it it understood in its general connotation. The law of limitation is a substantive law and has definite consequences on the right and obligation of a party to

34 CRA97.05 arise. These principles should be adhered to and applied appropriately depending on the facts and circumstances of a given case. Once a valuable right, as accrued in favour of one party as a result of the failure of the other party to explain the delay by showing sufficient cause and its own conduct,it will be unreasonable to take away that right on the mere asking of the applicant, particularly when the delay is directly a result of negligence, default or inaction of that party.