1. Present civil applications have been filed by the applicant - original claimants for condonation of delay in filing the first appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act on the grounds stated in the applications, inter alia, that the applicants are poor and illiterate and had no means and subsequently, they have decided to file the applications, which has resulted in the delay.
2. A reply has been filed by the respondent opposing the application, inter alia, contending that no sufficient cause has been shown for the delay. It is denied that the applicants are illiterate and poor agriculturists, unaware of law of limitation and therefore, the same may not be condoned.
3. Heard the learned advocate, Mr.Amar Mithani for the applicants and learned advocate, Mr. S. P. Hasurkar for the respondents.
4. Learned advocate, Mr.Mithani has referred to the papers and submitted that the applicants were poor and illiterate and therefore, they were not able to appreciate and understand and therefore, it has caused delay in filing the appeal. He submitted that liberal interpretation and pragmatic approach is required to be adopted in such cases. In support of his submissions, he has referred to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2009 SC (Supp.) 695 as well as AIR 2003 SC 2588.
5. Learned advocate, Mr.Hasurkar, however, opposed the applications and submitted that it cannot be said that they were not aware. He submitted that once having accepted the judgment and the amount awarded, it is not open for them to subsequently challenge. He further submitted that the amount has already been withdrawn by the applicants and, hence, it cannot be said that they were not in touch with the advocate for obtaining necessary advice nor they could not appreciate and understand. He, therefore, submitted that as no sufficient cause has been shown for condonation of delay, the present applications may be rejected.
6. In view of the rival submissions, it is required to be considered whether the present applications can be entertained or not.
7. In view of the grounds stated in the application, it cannot be said that there is no sufficient cause made out for condonation of a delay. The submissions made by learned advocate, Mr.Hasurkar with regard to conduct and the fact that having accepted the judgment and received the amount, it is not open for them to challenge, is misconceived. In fact, the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in AIR 2009 SC (Supp.) 695 merely provide that what is required to be considered is not only the length of the delay, but sufficiency of the cause. Further, catena of judicial pronouncements clearly laid down the guidelines with regard to the pragmatic approach to be adopted in such cases. Therefore, in light of such guidelines, present applications deserve to be allowed and accordingly, stand allowed. Delay is condoned. Rule is made absolute.
8. Main matters to be placed for hearing on 27.2.2012.
(RAJESH H SHUKLA, J.) (vipul) Top