MANDEEP SINGH Vs. SANTOSH SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Cm APPLS. No. 8429/2018 (delay of 651 days) & MAT.APP(F.C.) 49/2018

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appeal could not be filed within the period of limitation as after the impugned order was passed on 01.04.2016, the appellant had sought review of the aforesaid order by filing a review petition which was dismissed as withdrawn on 17.01.2018 and thereafter, the present appeal was filed within 30 days. He further submits that he is not aware as to on which date the petition for review was filed.

(3.) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Nath Sao v. Gobardhan Sao reported at, 2002 3 SCC 195, while dealing with the expression "sufficient cause" within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act held that the explanation furnished would constitute "sufficient cause" or not will be dependent upon facts of each case. There cannot be a straitjacket formula for accepting or rejecting explanation furnished for the delay caused in taking steps. It was further held that "While considering the matter the courts should not lose sight of the fact that by not taking steps within the time prescribed a valuable right has accrued to the other party which should not be lightly defeated by condoning delay in a routine-like manner".