BANARSI LAL Vs. BIMLA DEVI AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is against the order dated 9.4.2014 dismissing the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act,1963 ('the Act'). The trial Court passed the judgment and decree on 08.11.2011. As per Article 116 (b) of the Act, a period of 30 days is provided to challenge the decree from the date of decree, which had expired on 8.12.2011. However, the present appeal has been filed for condonation of delay of 3 months and 23 days on the ground that the applicants were not in Nawanshahr for about 6-7 months as they had gone outside the State of Punjab for the purpose of their business and could not contact his Advocate. It is further averred that under some bonafide mistake, they could not contact their counsel as their mobile phones were also not in working condition outside the State of Punjab. He further averred that only a couple of days before filing of this application, they came back to Punjab and were informed by the Clerk of the counsel about the outcome of the case.

(2.) They immediately applied for certified copy and filed the appeal which was dismissed by the Court below on the ground of delay. While dismissing the application, it has been observed that the petitioner fell sick and, therefore, could not approach the Court in time, which is indirect contradiction with his pleaded case of being Out of State of Punjab and has relied upon the following cases:-

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has a good case on merit. He has submitted that the Court should have a pragmatic and justice oriented approach for condonation of delay, especially when the petitioner who is in business and was away from the State of Punjab, could not contact his Advocate for the purpose of filing the appeal but as soon as he came to know that the judgment and decree had been passed against him, he immediately obtained certified copy and filed the appeal along with an application for condonation of delay. It is submitted that even otherwise, there is no inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner which is of 3 months and 23 days which comes to 113 days only. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 extends the prescribed period in certain cases and provides that any appeal or application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of CPC may be admitted after the prescribed period, if the appellant or applicant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring or making the application within such period. The sine qua non in Section 5 of the Act is the "sufficient cause" which varies on facts of each case.