NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD Vs. KULDEEP KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-New India Assusrance Co. Ltd has filed a Civil Ist Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 29.10.2011 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Ramban (for short 'trial Court') in COS No. 06/2004 for recovery of Rs. 55,000.00/- along with pendentelite and future interest @ 9% per annum from it. The present appeal is belated and barred by limitation. The applicant/appellant has, thus, filed an application in terms of Section 5 of the Limitation Act for seeking condonation of delay of 591 days in filing the appeal. The application has been opposed by the respondent/decree holder.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant/appellant and perused the record.

(3.) It is axiomatic that while considering the application for condonation of delay, no straight jacket formula is prescribed to determine if the sufficient and good ground has been made out or not. It is, however, required to be borne in mind that there is subtle distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration of few days. In the case of former, the doctrine of prejudice may be attracted which would warrant strict approach whereas second calls for liberal approach. The conduct, behavior and attitude of a party relating to his inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so, as the fundamental principle is that the courts are under obligation to balance equities between the parties and the said principle cannot become a go-bye in the name of liberal approach. As is rightly held by the Supreme Court that if the explanation offered is concocted or is a cock and bull story, the Court should be vigilant not to expose other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation. For taking an appropriate decision informed by judicial discretion, the entire gamut of facts is required to be carefully scrutinized. The increasing tendency amongst the litigants to perceive that delay in approaching the courts is not a serious matter is required to be curbed, of course, within the legal framework. See Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy (2013) 12 SCC 649 .