JYOTI PVT LTD Vs. ALI SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicants/petitioners seek condonation of delay in filing civil revision to call in question order of learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Srinagar dated 7th of February, 2009 in civil suit titled M/s. Ali Shah and others v/s. M/s. Jyoti Pvt. Ltd. and others file No. 29/Numbri whereby learned trial Judge had decided preliminary issues (issues 5 to 9) in favour of the plaintiff/non- applicant and against the defendants/applicants. The delay in filing civil revision is sought to be condoned on the ground that the applicants have engaged a counsel from Jammu and the counsel for the applicants had to proceed from Jammu to Srinagar to collect the certified copy of the order sought to be impugned and thereafter draft the revision petition and sent it for signatures of the applicant No. 1 to Delhi. It is averred that the applicant No. 1 is Chairperson of Bharat Hotels and due to heavy work schedule the applicant No. 1 could not go through the draft of revision petition in time and it was only after her return in 2nd week of May, 2009 that the revision petition was signed. It is pleaded that though duly signed revision petition was dispatched to counsel at Jammu yet due to mistake committed by office clerk of the counsel, the petition got misplaced and was traced only on 20th of May, 2009. It is pleaded that after the petition was traced and application for condonation of delay was drafted and got signed by the applicant No. 4. The delay in filing the revision petition is said to be attributable to the mishandling of the revision petition is said to be attributable to the mishandling of the revision petition after it is received from New Delhi, in the office of counsel for the applicants. It is insisted that the applicants have an excellent case on merits and that the case sought to be set up in the revision petition because of its merit deserves examination by the Court and for this reason alone the revision petition does not warrant to be thrown out on mere technicalities. It is averred that the delay in filing the revision petition is neither intentional nor deliberate and that delay has been occasioned by unavoidable circumstances.

(2.) The condonation of delay application is opposed on the grounds that the averments made in the application are frivolous and vexatious and that the applicants have failed to give the details of the events in the application that put together, according to the non- applicants does not constitute a "sufficient cause" to prevent the applicants from filing revision petition within the prescribed time. The grounds urged in the application according to the non-applicants are nothing but lame excuses not countenanced by law. The non- applicant No. 4 has sworn affidavit in support of the application.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicants insists that there was only 16 days delay to be condoned and that the applicants have convincingly explained the delay in filing the revision petition on the strength of grounds spelt out in the condonation of delay application. It is argued by learned counsel for applicants that the grounds for condonation detailed in the application are cogent and convincing and enable the applicants to make out "sufficient cause" within the meaning of Section 5 of the J. & K. Limitation Act and that the application merits to be accepted. Learned counsel for applicants referring to case law on the subject argues that the expression "sufficient cause" is to receive liberal construction and that a case which is otherwise meritorious and genuine is not to be thrown out on technicalities. Learned counsel for the applicants to buttress his argument in particular has placed reliance on law laid down in AIR 2005 SC 2191. It is argued that the applicants are not required to explain every days delay and all that is expected from the applicants is to convince the Court that the delay was not deliberate or willful and actuated by mala fide intentions. Pointed reference has been made to following observations of Supreme Court in the aforementioned case :-