STATE Vs. MUHAMMAD ISMAIL MIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners/appellants seek condonation of delay of 334 days in filing civil 2 appeal against the judgment and degree dated 14.10.2000 under Section 5 of Limitation Act. In the application the petitioners in order to explain the causes which led the delay in filing the appeal, have stated that as soon as they came to know about the dismissal of their appeal they immediately approached the concerned Chief Prosecuting Officer vide letter dated 17.10.2000 for providing certified copy of the judgment, pursuant to which the petitioners received photostat copy of the judgment. The petitioners by the letter dated 21st of October 2000 submitted the case to the Additional Director General of Police. The Additional Director General of Police vide his letter dated 24th of October 2000 approached Director General of Police for permission for filing appeal. The petitioners Commandant 7th Battalion again approached Additional Director General of Police vide his letter dated 9th of November 2000 for early action in the matter and on 18th of Nov. 2000 sent a wireless message also. ADGP Armed in turn approached Director General of Police by his letter dated 18th of November 2000. On 27th of November 2000 a wireless message was flashed. In the meanwhile Director General of Police by his letter dated 18th of November 2000 approached the Home department for obtaining necessary sanction from the law department and meanwhile Additional Director General of Police had deputed an official for following the case in Secretariat vide his letter 28th of November 2000. Then again on 19th of January 2001 another letter and wireless message were sent to Additional Director General of Police Armed and 10th of February 2001 again DGP was approached through a letter from the Commandant. DGP received a memo from Home Department vide letter dated 4th of January 2001 asking for specifying the grounds for filing appeal. DGP by his letter dated 13th of January 2001 approached the Home Department in this behalf and a legible copy of Judgment was provided and again on 17th of February 2001 ADGP by his letter approached Director General of Police for grant of sanction at an earliest. The Director General of Police vide his letter dated 22nd of June 2001 again requested for early sanction for filing the appeal, which was followed by a communication from under Secretary of Government to specify the grounds vide letter dated 20th of August 2001 which was replied by DGP by his letter dated 25th of August 2001. Finally the matter was referred to the Law Department for grant of sanction on 18th September 2001. Senior Additional Advocate General was engaged to conduct the case who by his letter dated 19th of September 2001 asked the concerned department to provide the necessary record and Additional Director General of Police by his letter dated 10th of October 2001 asked the Commandant petitioner to provide the necessary record to him. Meanwhile the department applied for the copy of the judgment and degree which was issued on 18th of October 2001 and the same was sent to Senior Additional Advocate General alongwith the file. On receipt of the said material the Senior Additional Advocate General sought the documents by his letter dated 19th of September 2001 followed by reminder dated 15th of November 2001. Thereafter he held discussion with the petitioner Commandant as well as Chief Prosecuting Officer and finally the available material was provided vide memo dated 27th of November 2001 issued by Commandant 7th BN and on the said basis the appeal was drafted and presented before the court. 5 3. In N. BalaKrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, 1998 (7) SCC 123 Supreme Court has held: 11. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek there remedy promptly. The object of proving a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. The law of limitation fixes a life span for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and wasted time would never revisit. During the efflux of time never causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a life -span must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The law of limitation is thus found on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim interest reipublicae up sit finis litium ( it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation ). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time. 12. A court knows that refusal to condone delay would result in foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. This court has held that the words ' Sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari and State of W.B. v. Administrator, Howrah Municipality.'