Case Note & Summary
The judgment pertains to two civil applications filed by the applicants (Bombay Latex & Dispensions Pvt. Ltd. and other Narang group entities) seeking condonation of delay of 107 days in filing Civil Revision Application (ST) No.32 of 2011 and 108 days in filing the accompanying Civil Application No.51 of 2011. The revision application was directed against an order dated 30th September 2010 passed by the Small Causes Court at Bombay in an eviction suit. The applicants contended that the delay occurred because their advocate, Mr. Robert Sequira (Respondent No.6), failed to inform them about the order and that they were waiting for certified copies. The respondents (Vasantben Jethalal Doshi and others, trustees of J.A. Doshi Family Trust) opposed the applications, arguing that the explanation was false and that the applicants were negligent. The Court examined the affidavits and replies, noting that the applicants were aware of the order as early as October 2010 but did not take steps until December 2010. The Court found that the applicants had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the entire period of delay, as they could have filed the revision without certified copies. The Court held that the negligence of the advocate, without more, does not constitute 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and that the conduct of the applicants lacked due diligence. Consequently, both civil applications were dismissed, and the civil revision application was also dismissed as time-barred. The Court made no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Limitation Act - Condonation of Delay - Sufficient Cause - Section 5 - The applicants sought condonation of delay of 107/108 days in filing a revision application against an order of the Small Causes Court, citing negligence of their advocate and time taken to obtain certified copies. The Court held that the explanation was not satisfactory and that the conduct of the applicants did not show due diligence. The Court emphasized that the term 'sufficient cause' must be liberally construed but not to the extent of allowing gross negligence or lack of bona fides. (Paras 1-10) B) Civil Procedure Code - Condonation of Delay - Negligence of Counsel - Order 41 Rule 3A - The Court noted that the applicants were aware of the adverse order and the need to file a revision, yet they did not take timely steps. The mere fact that the advocate did not inform them or that they were waiting for certified copies was not sufficient to condone the delay. The Court observed that the applicants could have filed the revision without certified copies and that the delay was not properly explained. (Paras 5-9) C) Limitation Act - Condonation of Delay - Public Policy - Section 5 - The Court reiterated that the law of limitation is based on public policy and that delay cannot be condoned as a matter of routine. The applicants must show that they acted with reasonable diligence. In this case, the applicants failed to provide a plausible explanation for the entire period of delay, and hence the applications were dismissed. (Paras 10-11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the delay of 107 days in filing the revision application and 108 days in filing the accompanying application should be condoned, and whether the explanation of the applicants constitutes 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Final Decision
Both Civil Application No.26 of 2011 and Civil Application No.51 of 2011 are dismissed. Consequently, Civil Revision Application (ST) No.32 of 2011 is also dismissed as time-barred. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Condonation of delay
- sufficient cause
- negligence of counsel
- limitation period
- Order 41 Rule 3A CPC
- Section 5 Limitation Act
