Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Milind B. Jadhav and others, filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 03.01.2022 passed by the Learned District Judge-2, Kalyan, in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 56 of 2018, which rejected their application for condonation of delay of 5 months and 23 days in filing a civil appeal against the judgment and decree dated 15.11.2017 passed in R.C.S No. 193 of 2012 by the 5th Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kalyan. The original suit was filed by the respondents (Usha S. Patel and others) for possession, arrears of license fee, and damages against the original defendants, including the petitioners, in respect of a room in Shambhu Building, Kalyan. The suit was decreed on 15.11.2017. The petitioners sought to appeal but filed it with a delay, claiming that they were unaware of the decree because their counsel had died and they had no communication. The learned District Judge rejected the application, finding the explanation insufficient. The High Court examined the facts and noted that the petitioners were present in court on the date of judgment and had not taken any steps to follow up. The court held that the delay was not due to sufficient cause but due to gross negligence and lack of diligence. The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the District Judge.
Headnote
A) Limitation Act - Condonation of Delay - Section 5 - Sufficient Cause - The court considered whether the delay of 5 months and 23 days in filing the civil appeal was sufficiently explained. The petitioners claimed they were unaware of the decree due to the death of their counsel and lack of communication, but the court found the explanation vague and lacking in particulars, noting that the petitioners were present in court on the date of judgment and had not taken steps to follow up. Held that the delay was not condonable due to gross negligence and lack of diligence (Paras 3-8). B) Civil Procedure Code - Appeal - Condonation of Delay - Section 5 of Limitation Act - The court examined the principles governing condonation of delay, emphasizing that while a liberal approach is warranted, it does not extend to cases of gross negligence or lack of bona fides. The court found that the petitioners' conduct showed a lack of diligence and that the delay was not satisfactorily explained. Held that the impugned order rejecting the application was justified and did not warrant interference (Paras 5-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned District Judge erred in rejecting the application for condonation of delay of 5 months and 23 days in filing the civil appeal against the judgment and decree dated 15.11.2017.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the District Judge rejecting the condonation of delay.
Law Points
- Condonation of delay
- Sufficient cause
- Gross negligence
- Limitation Act
- Section 5
- Liberal approach
- Right to appeal
- Merits of case
