Condonation of delay

The purpose of limitation set down in the Limitation Act, 1908 is not meant to obliterate or devastate the rights of the parties but in all intent and purposes, it is to make sure that parties do not resort to lagging or sluggish trickeries and the bright idea is to keep alive every legal remedy for a period specified by the legislature under the Limitation Act, 1908 and within such period, a legal remedy can be availed for the recompense and reparation of the grievance

While considering an application for condonation of delay no straitjacket formula is provided or vouched for but each case has to be weighed on its own peculiar facts and circumstances including the conduct of the parties regarding its procrastination or laxity is also quite relevant for weighing the scale of balance of justice

The concocted or fanciful grounds cannot be considered a sufficient cause to overturn the lifespan of limitation period fixed for recourse

Careless, intentional or obvious sluggishness, or dearth of bona fide are no reasons for condonation of delay

The law of limitation is founded on public policy with the common sense and wisdom of attaining finality to the judgments.

While considering the grounds for condonation of delay, whether rational or irrational, no extraordinary clemency or compassion and / or preferential treatment may be accorded to the Government departments, autonomous bodies or private sector/organizations, rather their cases should be dealt with uniformly and in the same manner as cases of ordinary litigants and citizens.

Present Civil Appeal arose against the judgment of the Divisional Bench of the High Court, whereby, the appeal was dismissed as being time-barred

The appellant contended that the High Court erroneously applied Article 151 of the Limitation Act, 1908, which prescribed twenty days for filing an appeal against a decree, whereas the correct provision was Article 156 of the Limitation Act, 1908 allowing 90 days

It was further argued that while making the award a rule of court, the Single Judge in Chambers failed to consider material defects rendering the award void ab initio, and hence no limitation could run against a void order

Leave to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court to consider whether "the High Court rightly applied Article 151 of the Limitation Act, 1908 which provides limitation of twenty days for filing a High Court appeal against a decree and whether award which was made rule of court was not a decree, therefore, Article 156 which prescribed limitation of ninety days was applicable in the case"

Held: Decree was obviously passed by the High Court in exercise of its original jurisdiction for which twenty days' time was provided for challenging such a decree in accordance with Article 151 of the Limitation Act, 1908

Nevertheless, even if Article 156 applied then also the appeal was filed much later than ninety days

Award being void could not qualify as a ground for condoning the delay in filing of appeal

Due to carelessness and inattention or lack of bona fide on the part of the appellant there was no lawful justification to expose or burden the other side to the time-barred appeal

There was no justification warranting interreference of the Supreme Court

Civil appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

While considering the grounds for condonation of delay, whether rational or irrational, no extraordinary clemency or compassion and/or preferential treatment may be accorded to the Government department, autonomous bodies, or private sector/organizations; rather, their cases should be dealt with uniformly and in the same manner as cases of ordinary litigants and citizens.

Such discretion must be exercised judiciously and within parameters recognized by law.

While courts are inclined towards deciding matters on merits rather than technicalities, this principle does not override statutory limitations unless compelling justification is shown; otherwise, limitation law would be rendered otiose and the principle of finality of adjudication defeated.

Suit was filed by respondents / plaintiffs assailing mutation containing names of petitioners/defendants as owners of suit land

Trial Court dismissed the suit but Lower Appellate Court decreed the same in favour of respondents/plaintiffs

Two revision applications were filed against same judgment, one was within time while the other was barred by limitation

Held: Respondents/plaintiffs had been in possession of property since long and their possession was never disturbed in any manner

There had not been any actual denial of their rights except through mutation in question

One of the mutations was attested on 28-06-1997 while the other mutation had been attested on 25-05-1998

Suit instituted on 23-09-2000 was within six years of attestation of mutation when actual denial of right took place

Delay in limitation in filing of other revision application was condoned as the other application filed against same judgment was filed within time and was also sought to be disposed of through single judgment

High Court declined to interfere in judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate Court in favour of respondents / plaintiffs

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Application for condonation of delay filed by the plaintiff along with application for restoration was dismissed by the Trial Court

Defendant approached High Court as the Appellate Court allowed condonation of delay

Validity

Record reveals that the ground of plaintiff's ailment from cancer was mentioned as the cause

Appellate Court considered said ground "sufficient cause" for explanation of the 22 days delay occasioned in filing the application for restoration

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, vests the Court with vast discretion to condone delay in case where the Court is satisfied that the application seeking condonation of delay discloses "sufficient cause" by accounting for each day's delay

The present case falls in the category of cases where S.5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, is applicable and the Court while taking all the relevant facts and circumstances into account reached the conclusion that the delay of 22 days in filing application for restoration of suit was condonable as the plaintiff was prevented from approaching the Court within time due to severe illness from cancer

This was "sufficient cause" in the given circumstances

No jurisdictional defect or illegality in the exercise of discretion by the Appellate Court had been pointed out

Revision petition, being merit-less, was dismissed, in circumstances.

Fairness, due process of law and natural justice are important constitutional elements as grounds for judicial review of public actions ; they fall to be dealt with under two provisions, one constitutional and the other statutory

The constitutional provisions are Art. 4 and Art. 10A of the Constitution which guarantee fair trial and due process of law

In the presence of a statutory provision like S.24A of General Clauses Act, 1897, it is hard to see how our Courts can shy away from enforcing the duty to give reasons where authorities are acting in an administrative or quasi-judicial capacity

The mandatory requirements to give reasons must be applied with complete vigor, particularly in financial matters

High Court is mindful of the fact and does not expect the revenue officers to demonstrate as if they are trained legal minds and must know the jurisprudence to entirety, however, the least which is expected from them is that their orders must be well founded and rooted in reasons on the basis of plain meanings and contours of a statutory provisions, which they tend to invoke

Even though the right of reasoned order is not formally recognized as one of the principles of natural justice, it is one in spirit and practice, continually gaining prominence as a tenet of natural justice

Thus, it can be said: "Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion and without the same, it becomes lifeless"

In the matters pertaining to the rights of the citizens/persons, particularly, where it is complained that rights guaranteed under Arts. 4 and 10A of the Constitution have been breached, the effective supervision by the Courts comes in and such supervision for guarding the alleged infringed rights requires the rationale for the duty to give reasons

Wouldn't a duty arise in any case where the underlying decision is subject to judicial review?

Courts may run into some difficulties when there is an attempt to justify a reason-giving requirement on this basis

Some limitations must be devised

Supply of reasons and openness as a rationale for the present case is coherent with effective supervision as a general rationale for a duty to give reasons

Separation of powers, rule of law and good administration concerns can provide justification for a reason-giving requirement even in situations where the relevant statutory and regulatory provisions make no such imposition on administrative decision-makers

Article 4 of the Constitution is the bedrock of the Rule of Law and an antithesis to the rule of men in our country; it is a restraint on the executive and judicial organs of the State to abide by the rule of law

Article 4 of the Constitution ordains that it is an inalienable right of every citizen, wherever he may be and any person whenever he is in Pakistan, to have and enjoy the protection of law and to be treated in accordance with law

Thus, the impugned order being devoid of any reasons, having been issued without an opportunity of hearing, could not withstand any test of due process and administration of justice

High Court set-aside the impugned order with the result that the Show-Cause Notices issued on the basis of the Impugned Order were declared bad in law and of no legal effect

Constitutional petition, filed by Company/ Registered Person, was allowed accordingly.

Plea taken by the petitioners (Lahore Development Authority /LDA) in application for condonation of delay was that delay was caused because of unintentional mistake of the clerk of LDA counsel who misplaced the file in the office and they were under false impression that a civil revision had been filed in time

Validity

The present revision petition was barred by 255 days

In case of condonation, the applicant has to explain each and every day's delay, but in the case in hand, no such explanation had been offered by the petitioners

The legislature in its wisdom has fixed the period of limitations for a particular action

Besides, invoking remedy by some aggrieved person beyond the period of limitation prescribed for redressal of grievance, creates a valuable right in favour of the opposite party, therefore, in such case, delay of each day has to be explained by the defaulting party to the satisfaction of the court, which could not be condoned lightly or as of routine, as such arbitrary exercise of discretion would cause serious prejudice to the opposite party

Limitation is not a mere technicality and where the limitation period has expired, a right accrues in favour of the other side which cannot be brushed aside

The law of limitation is a rule of procedure, a branch of adjective law, which controls and regulates the process of litigation and time lines to prosecute a cause, failing which the matter must be closed

The litigant must take legal recourse with due diligence, as the law assists those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights

Law of limitation cannot be considered a mere formality, rather is required to be dealt with being mandatory in nature

Present civil revision ought to have been filed within 90 days as per Art.162-A of the Limitation Act, 1908

If objections raised by the office (of Court) were not removed during the period allowed by the office and meanwhile the limitation period expired, the appeal/petition would become barred by time

Law of limitation has a significant role in the administration of justice and an aggrieved person has to approach the competent forum within the period prescribed in the law and against the adverse order a party could not be allowed to sleep over it for an indefinite period and challenge it at the time of its own choosing rather the aggrieved party is placed under legal obligation to avail its legal remedy against the adverse decision/order/ decree within the prescribed period of limitation before the proper forum, whereas after expiry of the prescribed period of limitation, a tangible right stood accrued in favour of the opposite party and the said right cannot be frustrated merely on whimsical and unsubstantiated grounds

The reason assigned by the appellant for condonation of delay in no way could be termed as sufficient cause

Mere bald assertions were not sufficient to soften the implication of limitation in case of stale claims

Thus, no case for condonation of delay was made out in favour of the applicant/petitioners

Application for condonation of delay was dismissed

Consequently, the main Civil revision, being barred by time , was also dismissed.

Stance taken by the appellants (Secretary -Government Department) was that reference/ judgment was not in the knowledge due to prolonged correspondence among the offices

Validity

Under S.3 of the Limitation Act, 1908, it is the inherent duty of the Court to dilate into the question of limitation

Notably, the references were filed by the respondents in 2014 and after adopting due process, the same were decided by the Trial Court in the year 2024 which had been assailed under S.54 of the Land Acquisition Act

Present appeal had been filed with the delay of 318 days

The communication and correspondence inter se the departments cannot be considered a valid and reasonable ground for condonation of delay

Provisions of Art.156 of the Limitation Act, 1908, would apply to appeals filed under S.54 of the Land Acquisition Act

The law of limitation is designed to ensure diligence in pursuing legal remedies

Appellants had to explain the delay of each and every day with justified and cogent reasons

In the absence of any reasonable cause, the delay for such a long period cannot be condoned

Record revealed that the counsel for the appellants was appearing during the proceedings before the Trial court and participated in each and every step

Thus, the ground for no knowledge was against the admitted facts and record of the Trial court, therefore, had no substance

Even otherwise, limitation is not a mere technicality rather it creates a vested right for the opposite party and delay results in the extinction of a legal remedy unless valid reasons are taken

Record also revealed that the counsel for the appellants cross-examined the respondents and was present during the proceedings

Thus, the stance taken by the appellants was not justified and there was no sufficient reason to condone the limitation

Therefore, relying on the internal correspondence amongst the appellants was not sufficient cause and plausible explanation for condonation of delay

The appeal was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation and the appellants could not justify such a long delay; thus, the appeal was badly time barred

Application for condonation of delay was dismissed

Consequently, the appeal, being barred by time, was dismissed.

Each and every day consumed for approaching a court beyond the period of limitation has to be explained.

The time limit for filing an appeal prescribed under Art. 151 of the Limitation Act, 1908 is twenty (20) days, starting from the date of the decree or order of a High Court passed in exercise of its original jurisdiction

The instant High Court Appeal was overdue by five (5) days, while appellant in an application seeking condonation of the delay cited his wife's illness as the reason for the late filing, however, no documentary evidence such as medical records confirming her illness or supporting his claim was provided along with the application initially

Later on, the appellant presented a statement (annexing medical prescription / certificate etc.) yet the same (statement) was neither sworn nor accompanied by the said partner's affidavit

Therefore, said reason could not be considered a sufficient cause or a compelling ground for justifying the delay

Importantly, the delay in filing the High Court Appeal had vested rights in the respondent, which could not be disregarded unless the defaulting party (i.e. Appellant) demonstrated sufficient cause and explained each day's delay

Consequently, the delay in filing present HCA could not be condoned

Appellant's application for condonation of delay was dismissed

High Court Appeal was time barred

Division Bench of the High Court maintained the impugned judgment and decree passed by Single Bench dismissing suit filed by the appellant

Appeal was dismissed.

Appellant (Registered person / Company) filed appeal before the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue ('Tribunal'), which was late by 99 days

Plea of the appellant was that, against the order passed by the concerned Commissioner ('impugned order'), it had filed complaint before the Federal Tax Ombudsman ('Ombudsman') under the wrong impression that the there was no right of appeal and after disposal of said complaint , the Tribunal was approached

Validity

Record showed that against the impugned order, the appellant had approached the Ombudsman

Since the appellant had already filed complaint before the Ombudsman which was later rejected for lack of jurisdiction, the delay in filing the (present) appeal late was not without reason

Delay in filing of appeal was a technical error

Prayer for condonation of delay should be considered sympathetically

Technical ground of delay in filing appeal should not be made to hinder the cause of justice

When technical and procedural considerations were pitted against rights on substantial considerations, the substantial considerations had to be preferred over technical considerations in order to effectuate the cause of justice

Case of the appellant deserved to be decided on merits of facts and legal provisions rather than mere technicalities

Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted the main appeal for hearing and adjudication on merits

Application for condonation of delay was accepted accordingly.

Petitioner / company was aggrieved of extension in time by authorities to initiate audit proceeds beyond period prescribed for the purpose

Validity

Federal Board of Revenue and its officers are duly authorized under S. 214-A of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 to condone delay in performance of any act or thing for which a period has been prescribed under Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 and audit essentially is an act or thing to be done

Purpose of S. 214-A of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 is to give a separate overriding power to the Board to permit any act or thing to be done under the statute within such time period as it may deem appropriate, which is independent of any other provision of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 that provides a time frame and an audit is plainly such an act

Federal Board of Revenue has the power under S.214-A of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 to grant condonation

Show cause notice was to be issued within the prescribed five-year period, and such outer limit was absolute and could not be breached

Only five-year limit did not matter and delay after a timely notice had invalidated the proceedings

Additional statutory time limits, such as the time prescribed for issuing the order-in-original after a valid show cause notice were also mandatory and not merely directory but had created multi-layered, mandatory protections for taxpayers

Delays were not caused by any external or unavoidable impediment and Federal Board of Revenue could have proceeded within the statutory period

Benefit of such conduct rebounds entirely to taxpayer, not by operation of law but through the Authority's own failure to discharge its obligations with diligence and integrity

If the Authority was genuinely committed to proper discharge of its functions, it could have attributed liability when called for

High Court declared condonation of time by authorities as void

High Court restrained the authorities from seeking further information pertaining to Tax Year 2019 in pursuance of such condonation of time limit

High Court declared audit proceedings under S. 177 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 as time barred

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Argument of Bank / appellant was that there was sufficient cause for the delay, asserting that the judgment and decree of the Trial Court were not within knowledge of the Bank /appellant ; upon gaining such knowledge, the appellant obtained attested copies of the judgment, got sanction to file the appeal and engaged counsel after completing all the necessary legal formalities, thus the appeal was filed within the limitation period from the date of knowledge

Validity

Said cause for delay was not substantiated by the record as the judgment and decree were announced in the presence of both the parties and before the appeal was filed, execution proceedings had already been initiated by the Banking Court

Therefore, the reason advanced for condonation of delay was misconceived

Without first overcoming the barrier of limitation, the Courts are not justified addressing the merits of the case

Delay can only be condoned if a sufficient and valid cause is demonstrated in the application seeking such condonation

High Court had rightly deemed the appeal as time barred and dismissed the same without delving deep into the merits of the case

Appeal , filed by the Bank, was dismissed.

Petitioner/tax-payer was aggrieved of order passed by High Court on tax reference of authorities, which was filed beyond the time frame given by office of High Court

Validity

If objections raised by office of High Court were not removed within the time specified by the office and in the meantime limitation for filing appeal stood expired, such appeal would be rendered as time barred

Limitation is not a mere technicality, as once limitation expires a vested right is created in favour of other side by operation of law which cannot be taken away lightly

High Court had passed the order on merits of the case but failed to discuss averments of application with regard to limitation by specifying whether the same was allowed or rejected

High Court should have decided such objection of limitation as a preliminary issue

Supreme Court set aside the order passed by High Court and remanded the matter for decision afresh on application for condonation of delay

Petition for leave to appeal was disposed of.

Supreme Court condoned the delay as reasons mentioned in application seeking condonation of delay were valid and sufficient for the purpose

Application was allowed.

Petitioner/tax-payer was aggrieved of order passed by High Court on tax reference of authorities, which was filed beyond the time frame given by office of High Court

Validity

If objections raised by office of High Court were not removed within the time specified by the office and in the meantime limitation for filing appeal stood expired, such appeal would be rendered as time barred

Limitation is not a mere technicality, as once limitation expires a vested right is created in favour of other side by operation of law which cannot be taken away lightly

High Court had passed the order on merits of the case but failed to discuss averments of application with regard to limitation by specifying whether the same was allowed or rejected

High Court should have decided such objection of limitation as a preliminary issue

Supreme Court set aside the order passed by High Court and remanded the matter for decision afresh on application for condonation of delay

Petition for leave to appeal was disposed of.

Petitioner/authorities were aggrieved of award being made rule of the Court, and preferred appeal before High Court but the same was dismissed for lack of pecuniary jurisdiction

Lower Appellate Court and High Court declined to condone the delay caused due to filing of appeal before High Court

Validity

Delay of time in filing of appeal, application or suit may be condoned but subject to plausible and reasonable explanation

One who seeks condonation of delay has to explain each and every day's delay

Petitioner/authorities could not put-forward reasonable and plausible justification/explanation for filing appeal after about two years of passing of judgment and decree by Trial Court

Earlier appeal filed before High Court was not a reasonable justification

Petitioner/ authorities could not claim to be treated in any manner differently from an ordinary litigant

Time consumed in pursuing appeal in wrong forum could not be condoned under section 5 of Limitation Act, 1908

Time spent in pursuing proceedings before wrong appellate forum could not be excluded for the purposes of filing of an appeal

If appeal was barred by time, provisions of section 5 of Limitation Act, 1908, could only be invoked, that too, by showing sufficient cause

Forum of appeal was regulated by jurisdictional value in plaint

In presence of section 18 of West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962 there could be no doubt or complication to determine forum of appeal

Provisions of sections 5 and 14 of Limitation Act, 1908 would come into play only if delay appeared to be condonable because of the petitioners/authorities prosecuting their case with due diligence

Supreme Court declined to interfere in the judgment passed by High asCourt

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

Petitioner was convicted and sentenced to death on three counts and no Jail Appeal was filed by him despite being in jail for more than thirteen years before filing of appeal before Supreme Court

Validity

Superintendent of Jail should have obtained and forwarded appeal as he was under obligation to facilitate petitioner/convict in filing of appeal within the period of limitation as prescribed under Rule 91 of Pakistan Prisons Rules, 1978

Technicalities should not hamper Court of justice

Powers regarding condonation under section 5 of Limitation Act, 1908 should be liberally exercised to ensure administration of justice in its true spirit

Supreme Court condoned the delay of more than thirteen years caused in filing of Jail Appeal against death sentence on three counts

Application was allowed.

Petitioner/authorities were aggrieved of award being made rule of the Court, and preferred appeal before High Court but the same was dismissed for lack of pecuniary jurisdiction

Lower Appellate Court and High Court declined to condone the delay caused due to filing of appeal before High Court

Validity

Delay of time in filing of appeal, application or suit may be condoned but subject to plausible and reasonable explanation

One who seeks condonation of delay has to explain each and every day's delay

Petitioner/authorities could not put-forward reasonable and plausible justification/explanation for filing appeal after about two years of passing of judgment and decree by Trial Court

Earlier appeal filed before High Court was not a reasonable justification

Petitioner/ authorities could not claim to be treated in any manner differently from an ordinary litigant

Time consumed in pursuing appeal in wrong forum could not be condoned under section 5 of Limitation Act, 1908

Time spent in pursuing proceedings before wrong appellate forum could not be excluded for the purposes of filing of an appeal

If appeal was barred by time, provisions of section 5 of Limitation Act, 1908, could only be invoked, that too, by showing sufficient cause

Forum of appeal was regulated by jurisdictional value in plaint

In presence of section 18 of West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962 there could be no doubt or complication to determine forum of appeal

Provisions of sections 5 and 14 of Limitation Act, 1908 would come into play only if delay appeared to be condonable because of the petitioners/authorities prosecuting their case with due diligence

Supreme Court declined to interfere in the judgment passed by High Court

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

Delay of each day has to be satisfactorily explained, as after expiry of limitation period a vested right is created in favour of the other party which cannot be easily brushed aside as the law always helps the vigilant and not the indolent.

Application seeking condonation of delay in filing reference application was filed by Registered Person/Company (Applicant) while assailing order passed by the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue ('Tribunal')

Ground taken by the Applicant was that though the impugned order was served on its (Applicant's)authorized representative after ten days of passing by the Tribunal but the same was handed over to the Applicant after a month or so, thus, period of limitation starts from said communication instead of date of serving to representative

Validity

Period of limitation for filing the reference application under S. 47 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, ('the Act 1990 ') is thirty (30) days from the communication of the order of the Appellate Tribunal or the Commissioner (Appeals), as the case may be

In the present case, the (instant) reference application was filed with a delay of as many as 16 days, whereas the same was to be filed within thirty days

Ground urged by the Applicant through (present) application is vague and unpersuasive as the applicant has merely annexed an affidavit executed by his authorized representative, who personally received the impugned order; it is further noted that the said (impugned) order was subsequently provided to the applicant (after about month of passing of the same), pursuant to his contact and request

Said sequence of events clearly establishes that the passing of the impugned order was within the knowledge of the Applicant

Pertinently, the authorized representative of the Applicant, being a registered tax practitioner, was well aware of the statutory period of limitation for filing a tax reference under S. 47 of the Act, 1990 which prescribes a specific time frame for instituting reference application but despite receiving the impugned order, he could provide the same to the applicant himself on or before the expiry of limitation, but instead of handing over the same, he kept it with him for almost sixteen days, without any solid explanation or reason

In case of time barred proceedings, defaulting party must explain the delay of each day caused in preferring valid proceedings in accordance with law

In the present case, no sufficient cause is pleaded even in the instant application, so the Applicant deserves no leniency

Law helps the vigilant and not the indolent

Application for condonation of delay, filed by Registered Person, was dismissed

Reference application, being barred by time, was dismissed, in circumstances.

A party seeking condonation must prove that the delay resulted from circumstances beyond its control, such as, force majeure events (e.g., natural disasters, unforeseen emergencies); court closures due to extraordinary circumstances; legal impediments preventing timely filing

A casual approach or mere administrative lapses do not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay

If the delay is found to be intentional, avoidable or due to negligence, the appeal must be dismissed

The doctrine of limitation is based on the principle that "condonation of delay is an exception, not the rule"

Impediments of limitation cannot be traversed under pretense of hardships or imaginary inherent discretionary jurisdiction of the Court

Negligence, mistake or hardship do not save from limitation nor does poverty of the parties.

Defendant / company sought condonation of delay in filing of application for leave to defend the suit on the plea of acquiring knowledge of pendency of suit

Validity

Knowledge of defendant / company was knowledge of its officers

Leave application for defendant / company in view of O. XXIX, R.1, C.P.C. could have been filed by company Secretary or by any Director or other principal officer of the company

Officers who eventually filed leave application for defendant / company had already filed leave application for themselves within the prescribed time

Defendant / company could not say that it did not have knowledge that it was also sued and had to file a leave application within 30 days

Fraud alleged by defendant / company was committed by another defendant and not by plaintiff / financial institution

Plaintiff / financial institution did not prevent defendant / company or its directors from filing leave application within time and could not be faulted for infighting between directors of the company

To extend limitation for leave application by defendant / company, provision of S. 18 of Limitation Act, 1908 could not be invoked

High Court declined to condone delay and leave was not granted

Application for leave to defend the suit was dismissed, in circumstances.

A counsel's neglect to inform his client about fate of the case would not per se be a sufficient ground for condonation of delay

Ground of living in a far off village and lack of knowledge regarding dismissal of the case was a matter purely between client and his counsel, and it cannot be considered a sufficient ground for condonation of delay

Non-supply of cause list to counsel for a party would not constitute a valid ground for condonation of delay in absence of affidavit of the person concerned

Reasons to emphasize the law of limitation is that the same (limitation) has to be construed in strict sense because due to negligence and indolence of one party in pursuing the matter in the court, valuable rights are accrued in favour of the other party which cannot be done away with on flimsy and unsubstantiated grounds

Condoning the delay is not warranted without being satisfied about validity and sufficiency of the grounds raised for condonation of such delay.

Appellant (customer / Company), instead of filing within thirty days, filed appeal with a delay of at least 08 months after passing of decree

Validity

It was not explained in the application for condonation of delay that when the certified true copy of impugned judgment and decree (documents) was obtained

Even, as per endorsement date on both the documents, the appeal was filed after delay of two months thereafter, and not within 30 days thereafter

Delay of each and every day in filing the appeal had to be explained

Appellant had miserably failed to account for delay of each and every day in filing the appeal as required by law

The delay apparently caused by indolence and negligence of the appellant was shocking and unconscionable in that no cogent material had been brought on record to justify the same except a vague statement that authorized officer was suffering from some stress causing him mental disorder ; neither the gravity, nor the duration of which had been specifically revealed

Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed

Appeal, filed by customer / company was also dismissed, in circumstances.

Appellant (customer / Company), instead of filing within thirty days, filed appeal with a delay of atleast 08 months after passing of decree

Validity

Along with the application for condonation of delay, a photostat copy of a certificate, purportedly issued by a doctor had been filed by the deponent to support his statement / explanation ('certificate-in-question')

Certificate-in-question was issued on such date when at least seven months of impugned judgment has already elapsed

Certificate-in-question depicted that the deponent had remained under the treatment of said doctor for severe post trauma stress disorder ; however, it did not show that for how much period deponent remained under the treatment of the said doctor and from when

The doctor, in the certificate-in-question, had not clarified whether the deponent was not even able to communicate simple instructions to his lawyer to file an appeal within time, or that he was so incapacitated that his routine life had been compromised so much so that he had lost his ability to perform daily chores or run routine errands like a normal person

Therefore, certificate-in-question was of little help to the appellant for covering delay in filing the appeal

Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was also dismissed

Appeal, filed by customer / company was also dismissed, in circumstances.

A counsel's neglect to inform his client about fate of the case would not per se be a sufficient ground for condonation of delay when valuable rights accrue in favour of opposition party

Ground of living of the petitioner in a far off village and his lack of knowledge regarding dismissal of the appeal by High Court being a matter purely between him and his counsel, cannot be considered a sufficient ground for condonation of delay

Non supply of cause list to counsel for a party would not constitute a valid ground for condonation of delay in absence of affidavit of the person concerned

On account of dismissal of the suit, valuable rights accrued in favour of defendants which could not be taken away unless justifiable strong and convincing cause was shown to the court.

Delay of each day in approaching the court for filing a lis or an appeal etc. against the order etc. has to be explained

In the present case, the appellants' attorney has miserably failed to account for the delay of each day in filing the appeal

Appellants' failure in contacting their advocate or pursuing the matter posits indolence and negligence on their part for which the opposing party cannot be penalized nor certain rights created in their favour thus taken away

Law of limitation has to be construed in strict sense because due to negligence and indolence of one party in pursuing the matter in the court, the valuable rights are accrued in favour of the other party which cannot be done away with on flimsy and unsubstantiated grounds

Delay in filing appeal etc. against the order etc. cannot be condoned without being satisfied about validity and sufficiency of the grounds raised for condonation of such delay

In the present case, the vague and generalized statement has been given by the attorney in his affidavit regarding gaining knowledge of the dismissal of the suit

Appellants who have purportedly executed power of attorney in favour of their attorney have not come forward to file affidavits confirming the story narrated by their attorney

There is nothing on record to show as to why for a long time the appellants failed to pursue the case and did not produce evidence despite so many chances given by the Single Judge of this /High Court

Thus, the appeal was hopelessly time barred

High Court dismissed application under S.5 of Limitation Act, 1908

Appeal, being time barred, was dismissed accordingly.

While considering the grounds for condonation of delay, whether rational or irrational, no extraordinary clemency or compassion and/or preferential treatment may be accorded to Govern-ment departments, autonomous bodies or private sector/organizations, rather their cases should be dealt with uniformly and in the same manner as cases of ordinary litigants and citizens.

Held, that without knowing what the reasons for the judgment or order under review are a proper review thereof cannot be sought

Only once the detailed reasons are given can the same be read and mistake or error or other justifiable reason to file a review become apparent

Moreover, an Advocate filing a review would be handicapped to certify in the form of reasoned opinion the mistake, error or other justifiable reason on the basis of which the review merits filing

In the present case the review petition was filed three months and twenty one days before the detailed reasons by the majority were issued; and, though the review does not assail the minority judgments yet it was filed even before their issuance

Under these circumstances, the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the review petition was allowed.

Carelessness, intentional or obvious sluggishness, or dearth of bona fide are no reason for condonation of delay.

While considering the grounds for condonation of delay, whether rational or irrational, no extraordinary clemency or compassion and/or preferential treatment may be accorded to Government departments, autonomous bodies or private sector / organizations, rather their cases should be dealt with uniformly and in the same manner as cases of ordinary litigants and citizens.

Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abducting with intent to secretly and wrongfully confine person, giving false information respecting an offence committed, abetment

Appreciation of evidence

Delay in filing appeal against conviction

Condonation of delay

Accused was charged for committing murder of minor son of the complainant

Admittedly, Superintendent Jail had not forwarded any appeal on behalf of the accused despite the fact that accused being confined in jail was under his supervision

It was the obligation of the Superintendent Jail to facilitate the accused in filing appeal within the prescribed period of limitation as required under R. 90 of the Prisons Rules, 1978

No material was available on file to show that accused was informed by the Superintendent Jail and his desire to file or not to file appeal against his conviction and sentence had been obtained

Accused being prayer leader must not be acquainted with the legal technicalities and its consequences

Application for condonation of delay was allowed taking into consideration the long sentence of life imprisonment awarded to the accused.

Applications for restoration as well as condonation of delay, was filed after sixty days of dismissal of civil revision for non- prosecution

Plea of the applicants was that on the crucial date the wife of one of applicants/revision petitioners was taken to the hospital

Validity

Delay in filing proceedings cannot be condoned lightly unless it is shown that there are sufficient cogent and well convincing grounds for such delay or the order is coram non judice or void for any strong and plausible reasons

Record reflected that despite proper service, none was present on behalf of applicants ( revision petitioners) on date fixed to represent them , notwithstanding that they were being represented by two advocates

Assuming , for the sake of arguments, that if one of the said Advocates of the applicants was not available for personal reasons , then the other counsel should have appeared before the court ,or for that matter their attorney was duty bound to represent them on the date fixed

Ground cited in the application qua restoration of the revision petition and condonation of delay was certainly not plausible, convincing and reasonable nor sufficient in the attending circumstances of the case, therefore, the same could not be considered for restoration of the same

Existence of "sufficient cause " is sine qua non for condonation of delay

Law favours the vigilant and not the indolent

Party approaching court of competent jurisdiction for redressal of grievance beyond specified period of limitation is bound to explain each to the satisfaction of respective forum because a valuable right accrues to the other side, which is indeed not the case with the present application for restoration/ condonation of delay

Application for restoration of revision petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

It is existence of sufficient cause for not filing proceeding in time before proper forum that must be justified to the satisfaction of Court to exercise its power of granting or refusing to grant condonation of delay/extension of time

If such condition is not satisfied, there is no room for applicability of power to condone delay

Where no cause has, at all, been shown that is, where no explanation has been given for filing proceeding out of time, there arises no opportunity of considering sufficiency or otherwise of the reasons for that fact, and there cannot be any room for the exercise of discretion given under the law

If the condition is satisfied, then Court gets a discretionary power to grant or refuse prayer for extension of time

What is sufficient cause is question of discretion, which depends upon facts and circumstances of a particular case.

Suit instituted by the plaintiff (appellant) was dismissed by the Civil Court, however, Instead of filing appeal before the High Court, he filed appeal before the District Court which remained pending for about one year and finally the appeal was returned under O.VII, R.10 of C.P.C.

Appellant/plaintiff while preferring appeal before the High / Appellate Court also moved an application for excluding the period of pursing the remedy before the District Court

Validity

Where the plaint was returned under O.VII, R. 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, for its representation before the Court of competent jurisdiction, for all intent and purposes, it would be treated as a fresh institution

Application for excluding the period of pursing the remedy before the Court lacking jurisdiction, in the present case, was instituted under S.5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 ('the Limitation Act') which required a litigant to satisfy the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within the stipulated time period

In order to establish "sufficient cause", there was no mathematical formula or hard and fast rule that could be followed, however, although S.14 of the Limitation Act had no direct application to the appeals but the principles enumerated therein could be taken into the consideration by the (Appellate) Court while ascertaining the availability of 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay

Section 14 of the Limitation Act reflected that it was incumbent upon the litigant, seeking exclusion of time period for pursuing remedy in forum without jurisdiction, to plead the facts to justify the grant of relief and by reasonably demonstrating due diligence and good faith in pursuing the matter before the Court having no jurisdiction to adjudicate

Initial burden, to show the said elements for seeking to exclude the period consumed in prosecuting case before the forum without jurisdiction, was on the applicant pleading such relief

Applicant / appellant miserably failed to plead the elements of S. 14 of the Limitation Act

No plea as to the bona fide on the part of the applicant / appellant or any due diligence on his part had been taken in the application

Applicant / appellant had failed to give any justification or to argue as to due diligence adopted by the appellant for about one year of pursuing the remedy in wrong forum

Conduct of the applicant / appellant depicted carelessness, lack of required diligence and callous approach on the basis of which condonation of delay under S. 5 of the Limitation Act was sought, without even discharging the initial burden or even pleading necessary ingredients

Application for enlargement of time by excluding the time period of about one year for pursuing remedy before wrong forum, filed by the appellant, had no substance, therefore, the same was dismissed

Appeal was dismissed in limine, in circumstances.

Suit instituted by the plaintiff (appellant) was dismissed by the Civil Court, however, Instead of filing appeal before the High Court, he filed appeal before the District Court which remained pending for about one year and finally the appeal was returned under O.VII, R.10 of the C.P.C.

Appellant/plaintiff while preferring appeal before the High / Appellate Court also moved an application for excluding the period of pursing the remedy before the District Court

Contention of the applicant / appellant that the cases should be decided on the basis of merits rather than technicalities

Held, that the contention of the applicant / appellant was misconceived as availing the remedy within the period provided by law was not merely a technicality

Section 5 or S.14 of the Limitation Act, 1908, was not intended to add premium to the carelessness or to validate lack of vigilance and required caution by a litigant

Application for enlargement of time by excluding the time period of about one year for pursuing remedy before wrong forum,filed by the appellant, had no substance, therefore, the same was dismissed

Appeal was dismissed in limine, in circumstances.

Applicable period of limitation was prescribed in terms of S. 115, C.P.C., itself rather than under Limitation Act, 1908

High Court declined to condone delay as revision application filed by applicant was barred by limitation by a period of delay that exceeded well beyond that portrayed for the purpose of condonation

Provision of S. 5 of Limitation Act, 1908, was inapplicable

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Application under S. 5 of Limitation Act, 1908 technically is not applicable to appeal maintained under R.22(1) of Family Courts Rules, 1965 read with S.14(1) of Family Court Act, 1964

When such application is placed before Appellate Court it should not be dismissed on such technical ground of having been filed under incorrect provision of law and for all intents and purposes must be treated as an application filed under the proviso to R.22(1) of Family Courts Rules and adjudicated as against the same criteria as would be applied to application under S.5 of Limitation Act, 1908, on "sufficient cause".

Gas Utility Court, after hearing the parties, dismissed SSGC's summary suit on the grounds that the SSGS did not provide any sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the said suit

In relevant paragraph of the affidavit in support of the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, SSGC's authorized representative explained that the reason for not filing the claim earlier was that respondent/ consumer had given false hope to SSGC that he would settle the claim and only declined to pay the arrears 15 days before the date of SSGC' filing its claim before the Gas Utility Court

Appellant/SSGC did not provide any acknowledgement in writing from respondent/consumer, which could amount to extending the limitation period

In view of the same, presumably based on the assumption that the period of limitation for filing a suit for recovery of money was three years from the date when the payment became due, Gas Utility Court dismissed appellant/SSGC's application for condonation of delay for the reason that it did not find sufficient cause given in the said application explaining each and every day of delay in filing the summary suit

Appellant/SSGC had not identified any defect in the impugned order except than claiming that respondent/consumer was involved in gas theft, and the Court should not allow respondent/consumer to be let off

High Court did not find SSGC's submission acceptable

Appellant/SSGC should have acted in a timely manner, not slept over its rights, and taken an indolent attitude

SSGC had filed its claim before the Gas Utility Court under the Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016

Gas Utility Court, at the very inception, took notice of the plaint being time-barred and took up SSGC's application under S. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908

No illegality or irregularity had been noticed in the judgment and order passed by the Gas Utility Court

Appeal filed by the Sui Southern Gas Company Limited was dismissed, in circumstances.

Ground on which the delay was sought to be condoned was that counsel of the appellant was hospitalized who later passed away

Record revealed that the appellant/ petitioner applied for certified copies to assail impugned judgment after expiration of the prescribed period of limitation, and the appeal was barred by about seven and half months

No explanation was presented by the appellant/petitioner other than the assertion that the case file was returned to him by the family members of the deceased counsel after seven months of passing of judgment and he came to know about the judgment (to be assailed) on receiving notice issued by the Executing Court

It is the duty of every litigant to pursue his case diligently and vigilantly, and to keep track of his cause on regular basis by inquiring its progress from his counsel at every stage of the case and after every date of hearing

In the present case, the appellant had admitted that his counsel had serious health issues since quite some time; accordingly, it was his duty to make some alternate arrangement either by engaging a new counsel or by appearing in person, however, he chose not to do so

It was not the case of the appellant that his counsel was on general adjournment on the relevant dates nor had any intimation in said behalf been filed by him

Moreover, appellant did not make any effort to inquire about the progress or fate of the suit

Appellant had not disclosed a specific date on which he received the case file

Furthermore the appellant took a month or so after receiving the file, for which no valid explanation had been offered

Thus, the so-called explanation offered by the appellant did not appear to be convincing or sufficient for the High/Appellate Court to exercise its discretion for condoning the unusual delay of seven and half months

Number of days by which the appeal was barred by time had not been disclosed in the application, nor the delay of each and every day had been explained therein

Thus, the delay in filing the appeal remained unexplained and as such could not be condoned, for having been filed after the prescribed period of limitation, which had created valuable right in favour of the respondents

No sufficient cause was found for filing the appeal beyond the period of limitation

Application for condonation of delay was dismissed, resultantly the appeal was also dismissed.

Provision of S. 115 C.P.C. is a special law and application of S. 5 of Limitation Act, 1908 has been excluded by S. 29(2)(b) of Limitation Act, 1908

Revision application filed beyond period of limitation is liable to be dismissed as time-barred.

Stranger to a suit can file appeal if he is aggrieved by decision in suit notwithstanding the fact that he was not a party to the suit

Appellant company had no standing before High Court as it had not availed right to file first appeal before Anti-Dumping Appellate Tribunal or where such appeal was dismissed on grounds of limitation

Affording such right to appellant company would render redundant the period of limitation prescribed by Anti-Dumping Duties Act, 2015 for the purposes of filing an appeal before Anti-Dumping Appellate Tribunal

Any party then could choose not to file appeal before Anti-Dumping Appellate Tribunal in the event that period of limitation had passed and would come to High Court which was second appellate forum, to avail their first right of appeal

Scheme of Anti-Dumping Duties Act, 2015 did not permit the same

Party who did not timely avail right of appeal before Anti-Dumping Appellate Tribunal could not be entertained by High Court by stepping into the shoes of First Appellate Court

Scope of appeal before High Court as second appellate forum was much more limited

High Court declined to become an instrument in altering adjudicatory scheme prescribed by Anti-Dumping Duties Act, 2015, creating Anti-Dumping Appellate Tribunal as the primary appellate forum

Appeals were dismissed, in circumstances.

Power to condone the delay and grant an extension of time under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 is discretionary.

Petitioner (defendant) had failed to appear before the Trial Court willfully despite being provided with more than enough opportunities

Appeal of petitioner was also hopelessly barred by time and she failed to explain the delay so caused in filing of appeal reasonably

Contention of the petitioner that delay occurred because the petitioner filed an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. before the Trial Court due to which she could not file appeal within time was not sustainable as petitioner had knowledge and was party to the suit

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused.