BHAWANI DUTT ATTRI Vs. MAYA DUTT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The civil revision petition was instituted by the petitioner on 3/5/2023. Since the petition was barred by 283 days, therefore, separate application was filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay. However, a coordinate bench of this Court was not satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner and accordingly passed the following order on 21/7/2023:- Learned counsel for the applicant shall file a better affidavit explaining the delay with supporting documents within three weeks. Thereafter, the petitioner continued through his counsel to take adjournments and when the matter was listed on 30/8/2024, counsel representing the petitioner was duly apprised of the death of the petitioner as would be evident from the order passed on the said date, which reads as under:- List on 29/11/2024, for taking steps to bring on record the legal heirs of deceased petitioner. Despite the aforesaid order, legal representatives of the deceased petitioner did not file an appropriate application for bringing themselves on record, which constrained this Court to pass the following order on 6/12/2024:- A perusal of zimini orders goes to indicate that probably this is a luxury litigation, where intimation of the death of the petitioner has already been communicated to the Counsel and despite statutory period even from the date of knowledge having been expired, no steps whatsoever have been taken for bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased petitioner. As a matter of sheer indulgence and by way of last opportunity, one week's further time is granted to do the needful, failing which the instant petition shall be deemed to be dismissed without further reference to the Court. List on 13/12/2024. It is eventually on 12/12/2024 that an application being CMP (M) No. 2030/2024 for bringing on record legal representatives of deceased petitioner came to be filed along with separate application seeking condonation of delay being CMP (M) No. 2031/2024. A perusal of CMP (M) No. 231/2024 goes to indicate that the counsel for the petitioner had learnt about the death of the petitioner in the month of June 2024 and duly communicated the same to the legal heirs of the petitioner, but they failed to contact the counsel within the prescribed period of limitation. The application for bringing on record the legal representatives of the petitioner is barred by 156 days and there is nothing on record to indicate or even remotely suggest that legal representatives of the deceased petitioner were serious enough to pursue the instant lis, which as observed above, appears to be a luxury litigation instituted initially by the original petitioner and thereafter sought to be continued by his legal representatives. This is clearly evident from the fact that not only the main revision petition is barred by 283 days but even CMP (M) No. 230/2024 is barred by 156 days despite the factum of death of the petitioner having been communicated to them by their counsel as is evident from para 3 of CMP (M) No. 2031/2024, which reads as under:- "that after the death of Sh. Bhawani Dutt the legal heirs of late Sh. Bhawani Dutt was not aware about the present pending civil revision petition before the Hon'ble Court. In the month of June 2024, the counsel of the deceased Bhawani Dutt got to know about the death of Sh. Bhawani Dutt and thereafter contacted to the legal heirs of the deceased Bhawani Dutt." This application is duly supported by an affidavit of one of the legal heirs of the deceased petitioner, wherein he has categorically affirmed these pleadings by stating that: "the contents of paras No. 1 to 7 of the application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief." It is more than settled that in matters of the instant kind the Courts normally are required to adopt liberal approach specially while dealing with the application for condonation of delay as ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging a petition late and refusal to condone delay can result in an meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and the cause of justice being defeated. It is clearly settled that the approach in such matter should not be a pandentic, but the doctrine that is to be kept in mind is that the matter has to be dealt in a rational commonsense, pragmatic manner and cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred over the technical consideration. However, at the same time, the Court is also required to see whether there are lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay. It has also to take into consideration the conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence while approaching the Court. It has further to be ensured that the concept of liberal approach has to be encapsulate the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play because there is increasing tendency to perceive delay as a non-serious matter and, hence, lackadaisical propensity can be exhibited in an non-challant manner, which requires to be curbed, of course, within the legal parameters. This legal position is succinctly expounded in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy 2013 (12) SCC 649, wherein while interpreting the provisions of Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act regarding condonation of delay the principles applicable thereto were summarised as follows:-