KISHEN PATEL Vs. GUJARAT INSECTICIDES LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application being Civil Application No. 11448 of 2015 is for condonation of delay of 1200 days roughly more than 3 1/2 years in preferring the appeal against the order passed by the learned Single Judge. As the delay was for a long period of 1200 days, we had also heard learned Counsel for the applicant-appellant on merits of the appeal.

(2.) On the aspect of condonation of delay, if the matter is considered as it is, there is no sufficient explanation whatsoever except the economical condition. The ground of paralytic effect on the body is alleged but no supporting document is produced. Further, on which date, the applicant was paralyzed and when he became capable to move are also not given except the vague statement. Even if the factum of withdrawal of the earlier Letters Patent Appeal and the filing of the review application and dismissal thereof are considered, we do not find that such can be said to be sufficient explanation for condonation of delay since even after the review application, the appellant cannot be said to have taken action well in time. Merely because review application is preferred, the limitation would not get automatically extended. Under these circumstances, the explanation cannot be said to be sufficient to exercise the discretion for condonation of delay of such long period of 1200 days. At this stage, we may usefully refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Limited v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and another , (2010) 5 SCC 459 : 2010 (88) AIC 220 (SC), and more particularly the observations made at paragraphs 14, 15, and 16, which read as under:--

(15.) The expression "sufficient cause" employed in section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 and similar other statutes is 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, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji , (1987) 2 SCC 107, N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy , (1998) 7 SCC 123, and Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil , (2001) 9 SCC 106.