Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Against Income Tax Reassessment, Directs Petitioner to File Appeal Adultery Requires Proof of Sexual Relations, Mere Emotional Attachment is No Ground to Deny Maintenance: MP High Court Co-Sharer Cannot Sell Specific Land Without Partition: Punjab & Haryana High Court Declares Mutation Illegal When Best Evidence is Withheld, an Adverse Inference Must Be Drawn Against the Prosecution: Supreme Court Slams State for Procedural Lapses When the State Itself Did Not Challenge the Earlier Judgment, Third Parties Cannot Litigate on Its Behalf: Supreme Court When Parties Have Agreed to a Fixed Compensation, Courts Cannot Rewrite the Contract to Award Additional Damages: Supreme Court When an Employer Deprives an Employee of Work Through Illegal Action, They Must Face the Consequences: Supreme Court Condemns State Transport Corporation’s “Fraud on Court” Possession Handed Over Before the Sale Deed Makes the Agreement a Conveyance: Supreme Court Rejects Appeal Against Stamp Duty Demand Promissory Estoppel Cannot Override Public Interest: Supreme Court Upholds Goa’s Power Tariff Rebate Withdrawal Tenants Cannot Stall Public Projects Indefinitely; Eviction Under MRTP Act is Legally Valid: Bombay High Court High Court Cannot Reassess Labour Court's Findings Like an Appellate Body: Delhi HC Consensual Physical Relationship Over Four Years Cannot Constitute Rape Under Section 376(2)(n): Karnataka High Court An Injured Witness Comes with a Built-In Guarantee of Truth: Allahabad HC Eviction Cannot Be Ordered Solely Because Evidence is Unrebutted: Kerala HC Encroachment Claims Do Not Justify Forcible Dispossession: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Injunction, Dismisses Appeal Limitation | An Educated Litigant Cannot Claim the Same Protection as an Illiterate One: Delhi HC Madras High Court Dismisses PhonePe’s Trademark Infringement Suit Against BundlePe & LatePe Bare Injunction Suit Unsustainable Without Declaration of Title When Ownership is Disputed: Karnataka High Court SARFASI | Exhaustion of Alternative Remedies Essential in SARFAESI Matters: Kerala High Court Once Penalty Period Ends, Employee Must Be Reconsidered for Promotion: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Law of Limitation Must Be Applied Strictly; Mere Negligence or Inaction Cannot Justify Delay: Punjab & Haryana High Court

17 January 2025 10:27 AM

By: sayum


Punjab and Haryana High Court, presided by Justice Deepak Gupta, dismissed a civil revision petition in Uday Srikant Ghatge & Others v. Rajinder Sharma. The petition challenged the dismissal of an application for condonation of a 1050-day delay in filing an appeal against an ex-parte decree. The Court upheld the decision of the First Appellate Court, holding that the petitioners failed to provide a sufficient cause for the inordinate delay, and reiterated the need for strict application of limitation laws.

The case revolves around a financial dispute in which the respondent, Rajinder Sharma, filed a summary suit for recovery of ₹1.13 crore paid to the petitioners for securing a medical seat for his son under the management quota. When the petitioners failed to appear, an ex-parte decree was passed on April 3, 2015. Subsequently, the petitioners filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex-parte decree, but it was dismissed by the Trial Court on April 17, 2017. No appeal was filed against this dismissal, allowing the order to attain finality.

The petitioners later filed a regular appeal under Section 96(2) of the CPC, seeking to challenge the ex-parte decree, but this appeal was filed with a delay of 1050 days. The First Appellate Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay, which led to the dismissal of the appeal as barred by limitation. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed a revision petition before the High Court.

The key issue before the High Court was whether the petitioners had shown sufficient cause to justify condoning the 1050-day delay in filing the appeal. The petitioners argued that personal hardships, including medical emergencies, attending criminal proceedings, and the long distance from their residence in Kolhapur to the trial court in Gurugram, had contributed to the delay.

The petitioners also contended that they had not been served summons after the suit was converted from a summary suit under Order 37 to a regular suit, which justified their absence and the resulting delay. However, the record showed that summons had been duly served through registered post and publication.

The respondent argued that the petitioners were well aware of the suit proceedings but chose not to participate, citing evidence that they referred to the pending suit in other legal proceedings.

Justice Deepak Gupta, in his judgment, upheld the decision of the First Appellate Court, holding that the petitioners had failed to provide a sufficient cause to justify the delay. The Court noted that even after deducting the time spent pursuing remedies under Order 9 Rule 13 and Section 151 CPC, the petitioners were still delayed by approximately 650 days in filing the appeal. The Court found that the petitioners had knowledge of the suit, as evidenced by their reference to it in criminal proceedings in Pune.

"In the aforesaid circumstances, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioners to plead that they were not aware about the pendency of the suit or that they came to know about the passing of the judgment and decree only after getting the summons in the execution." [Para 16]

The Court further emphasized the importance of adhering to limitation laws:

"Law of limitation finds its root in two Latin maxims, one of which is vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt, which means that the law will assist only those who are vigilant about their rights and not those who sleep over them." [Para 21]

Citing precedents such as Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Sagufa Ahmed v. Upper Assam Polywood Products Pvt. Ltd., the Court reiterated that negligence, inaction, or lack of bona fides cannot justify condonation of delay, especially in cases involving such a significant period.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the revision petition, holding that the petitioners had failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the 1050-day delay in filing the appeal. The Court upheld the First Appellate Court’s decision to dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation, reinforcing the principle that limitation laws must be applied strictly, and parties seeking relief must act diligently.

Date of Decision: September 12, 2024

Similar News