KETKI GUPTA Vs. BEERSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on I.A.No.1634/2021, which is an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act.

(2.) There is delay of 996 days in filing the present Civil Revision. The award was passed on 01.03.2017 and this petition has been filed without any application for condonation of delay and after objection of the office, the same is filed on 23.02.2021. There is no explanation with regard to day to day delay. The petitioner was regularly appearing before the tribunal and represented through counsel and was very well aware of passing of the award and only just to delay the execution of the award, has filed this revision after a period of two years with several defaults and also without application for condonation of delay.

(3.) Law of limitation being a substantive law, the cases are to be filed within a time limit. Filing a case within a period of limitation is the rule and condonation of delay is an exception. Thus, while condoning the delay, the Courts must be cautious and only on genuine reasons, the Courts are empowered to condone the delay. The power of discretion to condone the delay is to be exercised judiciously and by recording reasons. The reasons furnished for condonation of delay must be candid and convincing. Therefore, the condonation of delay cannot be claimed as a matter of right and only on genuine reasons, the delay is to be condoned and not otherwise. In the event of condoning the huge delay in a routine manner, the Courts are not only diluting the law of limitation but unnecessarily encouraging this kind of lapses. Therefore, reasons which are all acceptable alone must be a ground for condonation of delay, and filmsy, false and casual reasons cannot be taken for the purpose of condoning the huge delay.