Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Learned counsel for the appellants sought admission of the appeal APOT 338 of 2023 praying for condonation of delay of 66 days in preferring it and of 58 days in preferring the other appeal APOT 317 of 2023. There was divergence of opinion amongst learned counsel for the parties with regard to the exact delay, the respondents alleging that the delay was a little longer. In any event, the delay in preferring each of the appeals is very marginal.

Nevertheless, Mr. Anindya Kumar Mitra, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents very seriously opposed the admission of the appeal. He argued that even this marginal delay should not be condoned. A short but most interesting argument made by learned counsel was that an applicant for condonation of delay had to show sufficient cause which prevented him from preferring the appeal or application within time. According to him the applicant was required to show some steps in the prosecution of the matter within the period of limitation. At the time of consideration of the delay in filing the proceeding it had to be declared by the court that the delay was the result of sufficient cause. In this case the appellants had taken no steps to file the appeal before expiry of the period of limitation, he argued.

Necessary leave of the court to put in such requisition was obtained only on 24th August, 2023. The certified copy of the judgment and order was obtained by the advocate on record for the appellant only on 6th September, 2023. It appears from the records that the appeal APOT 317 of 2023 (Kedernath Tradecomm LLP & Ors. vs. Mayank Agarwal & Ors.) was filed on or about 11th September, 2023 whereas the other appeal APOT 338 of 2023 (Omkar Tradecomm LLP & Ors. vs. Mayank Agarwal & Ors.) was filed on or about 15th September, 2023.

The respondents no 1 and 2 have filed an affidavit in opposition to the explanation given by the Appellant for delay caused in preferring the Appeal, APOT- 317 of 2023 and same arguments were raised without affidavit in APOT- 338 of 2023. However with regard to APOT- 317 of 2023 it is contended that the appellant/ petitioner no 3 has not been authorized to file the above appeal APOT-317 of 2023. It is further contended that the said partnership firms has been wrongfully and illegally impleaded as the appellant no-1 in the present proceedings. The respondents have also contended that the time to appeal from the judgement and order dated 15th June 2023 has expired and save and except the purported change of Advocate on Record, no cause whatsoever has been shown as to why the petitioners did not prefer the appeal within the time prescribed thereof. The respondents no 1 and 2 have contended that admittedly even the application for drawing up and completion of the certified copy of the judgement and order dated 15th June 2023 was made more than 40 days after expiry of the period of limitation, for preferring an appeal from the said order. The said respondents have further contended that although it is alleged that the Photostat attested copy of the judgement and order dated 15th June 2023 was obtained by the Advocate on Record of the petitioners on 6th September 2023, the said petition appears to have been affirmed on 11th September 2023, i.e. after a delay of about 58 days from the expiry of the period of limitation. The respondents have contended that it appears from the allegations made in the said explanation for delay that the appellants/ petitioners no 2,3 and 4 were not inclined to prefer any appeal and the present appeal has been preferred only on legal advice and there is no explanation whatsoever for the delay of 58 days in preferring the above appeal. It is contended that the appellants/ petitioners no-2, 3 and 4 have been negligent and answering respondents would be prejudiced if the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The appellants have filed affidavit in reply to the opposition submitted by respondent no-1 and 2. The Appellants in the affidavit in reply re-iterated the contentions made in the explanation for condonation of delay. The appellants have contended that the appellant no- 3 being the partner of the firm is authorized to make and affirm the petition. The appellants have further contended that they have shown sufficient cause to condone the marginal delay of 58 days. The appellants have submitted that for the interest of justice the marginal delay of 58 days in preferring the appeal may be condoned by this Hon'ble Court. In the Appeal APOT- 338 of 2023 the delay is about 66 days and the same argument is adopted by respondent no-1 and 2 as it is done in APOT- 317 of 2023.

15. 'The expression "sufficient cause" employed in Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 and similar other statutes are elastic enough to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub serves the ends of justice. Although, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in dealing with the applications for condonation of delay, this Court has justifiably advocated adoption of a liberal approach in condoning the delay of short duration and a stricter approach where the delay is inordinate - Collector (L.A.) V. . Katiji, N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy and Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil.' As the Respondents no-1 and 2 have contended that the appellants have not explained delay of 58 days and 66 days save and except the change of Advocates let us consider paragraph 87, 88, and 89 of the petition GA 1 of 2023 of APOT- 317 of 2023 and GA-1 of 2023 of APOT- 338 of 2023 para-