This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decretal order dated 25.6.207 passed in IA.No.36/2007 in unnumbered CMA.CS.No.Nil/2007 by the learned Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram.
2. The 1st petitioner is the President and the petitioners 2 to 8 are the executive committee members of the respondent Society, against whom surcharge proceedings were initiated under Section 87 of the Cooperative Societies Act and the order was passed against them holding them liable for the loss occurred to the Society due to certain irregularities committed by the petitioners. The order has been served on them on 10.10.2002, but the appeal has been filed with a delay of 1590 days. The 1st petitioner has sworn to an affidavit and has stated that the other petitioners have authorised him to file the affidavit and at the time when they received the order, agricultural operations were going on and further he was seriously affected by jaundice for continuously three years which has resulted in the delay of 1590 days. The learned Principal District Judge refused to condone the delay holding that no sufficient cause was shown and dismissed the petition. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioners have preferred this Civil Revision Petition.
3. Mr.J.M.Hassanul Bazari, the learned counsel for the petitioners assailed the impugned order contending that though the delay is a long range of delay, in the facts and circumstances of the case the delay has been properly explained and therefore, the court below was in error dismissing the application for condoning the delay thereby subjecting the petitioners to irreparable loss and prejudice and as such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
4. The said contention is rebutted by the learned counsel for the respondent, contending that there was no bona fide in the act of the petitioners in moving the application for condoning the enormous delay of 1590 days and since sufficient cause had not been shown covering the entire period, the court below was right in dismissing the application.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court rendered in the case State of Haryana Vs. Chandra Mani and others [1996-2-LW-18], wherein it has been held thus: "The expression "sufficient cause" should therefore, be considered with pragmatism in justice oriented approach rather than the technical detection of sufficient cause for explaining every day's delay."
6. This court in the case of V.Amudha Vs. SA.Arumugham and two others [2000-1-LW-547] has held thus:-
"As stated in 1991-1-LW-739=1998-7-SCC-123, condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the Court and Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within certain limit."
7. In yet another decision rendered in the case of The Secretary, Madras Race Club, Chennai Vs. Saraswathi Kailasam and another [2007-3-LW-690], this court has held thus:-
"Expression 'sufficient cause' should be considered with pragmatism with a justice oriented approach. True test is whether the petitioner has acted with due diligence or can negligence or inaction or malafide could be attributed to the applicant.
8. The Division Bench of this court in the case of Sundar Gnanaolivu Vs. Rajendran Gnanavolivu [2002-2-CTC-521] has held thus:- "15. ... Sufficient cause has been exhibited to note that wherever there is lack of bona fides or attempt to hoodwink the court by the party concerned who has come forward with an application for condonation of delay, in such cases, no indulgence should be shown by condoning the delay applied for. It is also clear to the effect that it is not the number of days of delay that matters, but the attitude of the party which caused the delay. In other words, when the Court finds that the party who failed to approach the Court within the time stipulated comes forward with an explanation for condoning the delay, the Court, if satisfied that the delay occasioned not due to deliberate conduct of the party, but due to any other reason, then, by sufficiently compensating the prejudice caused to the other side monetarily, the condonation of delay can be favourably ordered."
9. In the above said decision, it is held that when the court finds that the party who fails to approach the court within the time stipulated comes forward with an application for condoning the delay, the court if satisfied that the delay occasioned not due to deliberate conduct of the party, but due to any other reason then by sufficiently compensating the prejudice caused to the other side monetarily, the condonation of delay can be favourably ordered. But, when there is lack of bona fide on the part of the petitioners while coming forward with the application, they do not deserve liberal approach formula in matters relating to condonation of delay. What is really necessary in this case is to go into the question as to whether in fact the factual statement made was probable and acceptable.
11. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition for condonation of delay, a bald statement is made that the 1st petitioner was suffering from jaundice for three years which on the face of it does not appear to be a genuine and acceptable reason. Even assuming that he was suffering from some illness, the other petitioners could have taken steps to file the appeal and nothing prevented them from doing so. A perusal of the affidavit does not reveal any diligence on the part of the petitioners to file the appeal and in fact their conduct clearly reveal that at no point of time, they have realised their responsibility to challenge the surcharge order by filing an appeal.
12. It is also well settled that the question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration but based on principles of sound public policy as well as equity and that a victorious litigant cannot be expected to remain disgruntled indefinitely for a period to be determined at the whims and fancies of the opponent. Under the circumstances, I see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the court below, which dealt with the issue at length and passed a reasoned order.
13. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected MP is closed.
Srcm To:
The Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram.