Mr. Rajan Sood, Advocate v. UNION OF INDIA
Case Details
Cited in this judgment
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the application for condonation of delay is wholly misconceived and not maintainable. It was pointed out that Section 23(3) of the RCT Act prescribes a limitation period of 90 days for filing an appeal before this Court, whereas the present appeal has been filed after an inordinate delay of 988 days.
5.1. It was submitted that the appellants/applicants have failed to explain the delay satisfactorily, let alone on a day-to-day basis. The explanation that funds had to be arranged is stated to be vague, insufficient, and not constituting “sufficient cause” in law. It was further submitted that the appellant has also not disclosed Signature Not Verified FAO 39/2021 Signed By:KOMAL DHAWAN Signing Date:28.11.2025 11:33:44 the date on which the certified copy of the impugned order was applied for or received. Reliance has been placed on a judgment of this Court in Leelu & Ors. vs. UOI (WP No. 4724/2010).
6. Heard both sides.
7. Section 5 of the Limitation Act empowers this Court to condone delay if the appellant establishes “sufficient cause” for not preferring the appeal within the prescribed time. The expression “sufficient cause” must certainly receive a liberal construction to advance substantial justice. However, such liberality cannot be extended to condone delays arising out of negligence, inaction, or lack of bona fides.
8. Paragraph no. 3 of the application for condonation of delay reads thus- “That the accompanying appeal could not be filed in time before this Hon’ble Court as the certified copy of the impugned order and judgment dated 12.09.2017 was received by the appellant only on _________, the appellants are the poor persons and could not contacted to the counsel for appropriate legal advice for the wants of funds and the appellants after Signature Not Verified FAO 39/2021 Signed By:KOMAL DHAWAN Signing Date:28.11.2025 11:33:44 arranging the funds approached to the counsel at Delhi and taken the legal advice and arranged the relevant papers required for preferring accompanying appeal before this Hon’ble Court and there has been delay of 988 days in filing the accompanying appeal.”
8.1. As is apparent, the date on which the certified copy was received is left blank. This itself shows the callous and careless manner in which the application has been filed. The application does not even state when the application for a certified copy was made and when it was received.
9. In P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala, (1997) 7 SCC 556, the Apex Court, while considering an application for condonation of delay of 565 days wherein no explanation, much less a reasonable or satisfactory explanation had been given, held that the law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes, and the Courts have never intended to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. Signature Not Verified FAO 39/2021 Signed By:KOMAL DHAWAN Signing Date:28.11.2025 11:33:44
9.1. Similarly, in PundlikJalam Patil v. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon, (2008) 17 SCC 448, the Apex Court observed that Courts cannot inquire into belated and stale claims on the ground of equity. Delay defeats equity. The Courts help those who are vigilant and do not slumber over their rights.
9.2. Further, in Majji Sannemma v. Reddy Sridevi, (2021) 18 SCC 384, it was reiterated that the law of limitation has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes, and the Courts cannot extend the same on equitable grounds.
9.3. Likewise, in Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81, it was observed that even though limitation may harshly affect the rights of a party, it has to be applied with all its rigour when prescribed by statute. It was further held that where a party has acted with negligence, lack of bona fides, or inaction, there cannot be any justified ground for condoning the delay, even by imposing conditions. Signature Not Verified FAO 39/2021 Signed By:KOMAL DHAWAN Signing Date:28.11.2025 11:33:44
10. The appellants have not even broadly accounted for how the delay escalated to 988 days. The cause shown does not constitute “sufficient cause” within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
11. Having considered the rival submissions and the material placed on record, this Court finds that the appeal suffers from a substantial delay of 988 days, that is, nearly three years, which has not been properly explained.
12. For the reasons stated above, I find no merit in the application. Hence, the application for condonation of delay of 988 days in filing the appeal is dismissed.
13. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed as barred by limitation. Application(s), if any pending, shall stand closed. NOVEMBER 28, 2025/er Signature Not Verified FAO 39/2021 Signed By:KOMAL DHAWAN Signing Date:28.11.2025 11:33:44 CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA (JUDGE)