RUNA DEVI Vs. SINGHU RAM AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this application, a prayer has been made by the applicant/appellant for condonation of 2376 days' delay in filing appeal against the judgment passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Kinnaur, Civil Division at Rampur Bushahr, in HMA Petition No. 3 of 2007, decided on 22.12.2010. A perusal of the judgment demonstrates that the present applicant was duly represented before the learned Court below.

(2.) In the application, the grounds which have been taken to justify the delay in filing the appeal are that when the applicant used to visit her Counsel, her Counsel used to inform her that the matter is pending and it was only 6 months back as from the date of filing this application that she was informed by her Counsel that her case stood dismissed and thereafter she was handed over copy of the judgment, from which she came to know that her case stood decided on 212010. Prima-facie this Court is not convinced with the explanation given in the application, because, in my view, these are the routine excuses which are made in the applications for condonation of delay. It is well settled principle of law that by efflux of time, rights accrue upon a party and such rights cannot be taken away in an arbitrary manner. Principle of limitation envisages that in case a person is not diligent in pursuing his/her legal remedy, then after the limitation period, though the right survives but remedy goes. This Court is not oblivious of the fact that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does confer power upon the Court to condone delay, however, this power is not to be exercised in a mechanical manner and is only to be exercised if Court is convinced that the applicant was not negligent in pursuing his/her legal remedy and proceedings could not be initiated for the reasons beyond the control of the party concerned.

(3.) Now coming to the facts of this case, as already mentioned above, the averments made in the application do not satisfy the judicial conscious of this Court that delay in filing the appeal is bonafide. In fact the explanation given in the application for delay does not inspires any confidence.