STATE Vs. AB REHMAN DAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DELAY of 365 days in preferring Civil Second appeal is sought. 'Sufficient cause for non filing the appeal in time required to be projected and explained as precondition for condonation is not satisfactory. It is no more res -integra that 'sufficient cause has to be construed liberally so as to advance the cause of justice but for construing it so liberally power is fettered. If gross negligence/inaction are attributable to the seeker then other party can not be made to suffer. Gross and negligent attitude has to be discouraged; otherwise law of limitation will be rendered illusory and illogical.

(2.) PRINCIPLES have been laid down for refusing or accepting the motion for condonation by the Apex Court in the judgment reported in AIR 1987 SC 1353. i. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. ii. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. iii. Every days delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hours delay, every seconds delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. iv. When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of non -deliberate delay. v. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala -fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. vi. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize in justice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so." In Ram Nath Sao v. Gobardhan Sao reported in AIR 2002 SC 1201 the Apex Court has observed as follows: "Acceptance of explanation furnished is the rule and refusal an exception more so when no negligence or inaction or want of bona -fide can be imputed to the defaulting party. ........................ However, by taking a pedantic and hyper technical view of the matter the explanation furnished should not be rejected when stakes are high and/or arguable points of facts and law are involved in the case causing enormous loss and irreparable injury to the party against whom the lis terminates either by default or inaction and defeating valuable right of such a party to have the decision on merits. The observation made by the Rajasthan High Court in Urban Improvement Trust v. Poonam Chand AIR 1997 Rajasthan 134 deserves mention in this regard. The relevant observation is a follows: - "Now it must be taken to be well settled principle of law that before rejecting applications under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act and dismissing appeals as barred by lapse of time, the courts of law are required to put a glance as a condition precedent on the merits of the appeals and unless the appeals are found to be hopelessly devoid of merits ordinarily efforts should be made to decide the appeals on merit."

(3.) THE present case has to be considered in the backgrounds of the principles as laid down. For appreciating the matter in it right prospective, it shall be quite relevant to precisely notice the factual aspect of the matter.