Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

28. Identical issue came for consideration in the case of State of West Bangal vs. Administrator Hawarah Municipality and Ors., reported in A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 749 in that case, the Hon'ble Supreme court Court has held that same set of principle will applicable while exercising the discretion in condonation of delay, either it is Government or a private body, unless the statute itself makes any distinction. It has further been held that sufficient cause should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence nor inaction or Patna High Court L.P.A No.1058 of 2019(7) dt.24-10-2019 want of bona fide is imputable to a party. It will be relevant to quote paragraph nos. 27 and 30 of the said judgment, which read as under:-

30. From the above observations it is clear that the words "sufficient cause" should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fide is imputable to a party."

29. In the case of Postmaster General and Others vs. Living Media India Limited and another (supra), which has been cited by learned counsel for the respondents, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has framed the issue in the following manner:-

36. The judgment rendered in the case of Bhivchandra Shankar More vs. Balu Gangaram More and Others (supra), cited by learned counsel for the Union of India, was a case where a partition suit was filed and preliminary decree was passed ex parte. Whereafter, an application under Order IX Rule Patna High Court L.P.A No.1058 of 2019(7) dt.24-10-2019 13 CPC was filed, but at the appellate stage, the same was withdrawn and later on, an appeal was filed against the ex parte decree. The issue of condonation of delay in filing the appeal came for consideration before the Bombay High Court and the Bombay High Court had taken a view that period spent in pursuing the remedy by filing the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC will not come in the aid for condonation of delay. Ultimately, matter went to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has condoned the delay and while passing the order has set out the guidelines that the word "sufficient cause" should be given liberal construction so as to advance sustainable justice when there is no inaction, no negligence nor want of bona fide could be imputable to the appellant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that if these conditions are absent, it should be kept in mind that Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. It means that that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. The law of limitation fixes a lifespan for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and wasted time would never revisit. During the efflux of time, Patna High Court L.P.A No.1058 of 2019(7) dt.24-10-2019 newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a lifespan must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation).

37. It will be relevant to quote paragraph nos. 15 to 17 of the said judgment, which read as under:-

"15. It is a fairly well-settled law that "sufficient cause" should be given liberal construction so as to advance sustainable justice when there is no inaction, no negligence nor want of bonafide could be imputable to the appellant. After referring to various judgments, in B. Madhuri, this Court held as under:-