Bombay High Court Dismisses Condonation of Delay Application by Municipal Corporation Due to Lack of Sufficient Cause. Delay of 235 Days in Filing Appeal Not Explained with Affidavit or Proper Grounds, Limitation Act, 1963 Section 5.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY
  • 31
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai filed an application for condonation of delay of 235 days in filing a first appeal against a decision of the Small Causes Court at Bombay dated 25th September 2004 in Appeal No.61 of 1999. The applicant applied for a certified copy on 27th October 2004, which was beyond the period of limitation, and collected it on 30th November 2004. The appeal was presented on 13th June 2005, resulting in a delay of 235 days as computed by the registry. In the application, the only explanation offered was that after obtaining the certified copy and studying the case papers, the Deputy Law Officer took orders from the Law Officer to go in appeal, and that the delay was unintentional. Respondents No.1 and 2 filed a reply opposing the delay application on 29th October 2005, but no rejoinder affidavit was filed by the applicant. The court noted that the explanation was vague and did not disclose any sufficient cause for the delay. No affidavit from the concerned officer was filed, and no details were given as to what happened between 30th November 2004 and 13th June 2005. The court held that the delay could not be condoned as a matter of routine and dismissed the application with costs of Rs.2,500 payable to the respondents.

Headnote

A) Limitation Act - Condonation of Delay - Section 5 - Sufficient Cause - The applicant, Municipal Corporation, sought condonation of 235 days delay in filing appeal against Small Causes Court decision - The only explanation was that after obtaining certified copy, the Deputy Law Officer took orders from Law Officer to go in appeal - No affidavit from concerned officer, no details of internal processing, no explanation for period between 30.11.2004 and 13.6.2005 - Held that such vague explanation does not constitute sufficient cause, especially when no rejoinder was filed to respondent's opposition - Delay cannot be condoned as a matter of routine (Paras 2-4).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the delay of 235 days in filing the first appeal should be condoned on the grounds stated by the applicant Municipal Corporation.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Application dismissed with costs of Rs.2,500 payable to the respondents.

Law Points

  • Condonation of delay
  • Sufficient cause
  • Limitation Act
  • 1963 Section 5
  • Negligence of government department
  • Duty to explain delay day by day
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2006 LawText (BOM) (01) 24

Civil Application No.2824 of 2005 in First Appeal (St.)No.13858 of 2005

2006-01-17

A.M.Khanwilkar, J

Mr.A.Y.Sakhare, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Xavier for applicant B.M.C., Mr.M.D.Angal for Respondent No.1,2,4 and 5, Mr.Rajendra Gehani for respondent No.3

The Municipal Corpn. of Gr.Mumbai.

Smt.Prabhawati Harkkishindas Gehani & Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil application for condonation of delay in filing first appeal against decision of Small Causes Court.

Remedy Sought

Condonation of 235 days delay in filing first appeal.

Filing Reason

Delay in filing appeal due to internal processing by the Municipal Corporation's law officers.

Previous Decisions

Small Causes Court at Bombay decided Appeal No.61 of 1999 on 25th September 2004.

Issues

Whether the delay of 235 days in filing the appeal should be condoned.

Submissions/Arguments

Applicant: Delay was unintentional and due to internal processing by Deputy Law Officer and Law Officer. Respondents: Opposed condonation, no sufficient cause shown.

Ratio Decidendi

Vague and general explanation without affidavit from concerned officer or details of internal processing does not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Judgment Excerpts

The only explanation offered for such delay can be discerned from paragraph 5 which reads thus... In the absence of any further explanation, the delay cannot be condoned as a matter of routine.

Procedural History

Small Causes Court at Bombay decided Appeal No.61 of 1999 on 25.9.2004. Applicant applied for certified copy on 27.10.2004 (beyond limitation), collected on 30.11.2004. Present application filed on 13.6.2005. Respondents filed reply on 29.10.2005. No rejoinder filed.

Acts & Sections

  • Limitation Act, 1963: Section 5
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Condonation of Delay Application by Municipal Corporation Due to Lack of Sufficient Cause. Delay of 235 Days in Filing Appeal Not Explained with Affidavit or Proper Grounds, Limitation Act, 1963 Section 5.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds NGT Directions on Buffer Zones for Lakes and Rajakaluves in Bangalore — Environmental Protection Prevails Over Development Rights. The Court held that the NGT's directions for buffer zones of 75 meters around lakes and 25-50 m...