JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. RAMGOPAL NAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Counsel for the petitioner heard. There is a delay of 266 days in filing this Revision Petition. Though, the petitioner in his application for condonation of delay, has mentioned that there is a delay of 352 days. Counsel for the petitioner admits that due to departmental delay, the above said delay was caused. In his application for condonation of delay the petitioner has explained the delay in para Nos. 2,3,4,5,6 & 7, which are reproduced here as under:-

(2.) The expression "sufficient cause" cannot be erased from Section 5 of the Limitation Act by adopting the excessive liberal approach, which would defeat the purpose of section 5 of the Limitation Act and C.P. Act. There must be some cause, which can be termed as a 'sufficient cause' for the condonation of delay. This view neatly dovetails with the Supreme Court's authorites reported in Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, 2011 4 CPJ 63 , R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2009 1 CalLT 188 , Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., 1962 AIR(SC) 361 & Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr., 2012.

(3.) The latest view was taken by the Apex Court in the case "Sanjay Sidgonda Patl Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.", decided by the Apex Court while dismissing the Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 37183 of 2013, decided on 17.12.2013, upholding the order of this Commission wherein delay of 13 days was not condoned.