The State of Maharashtra v. Rukmaji Krishnaji Indrale died L.Rs. VasantR Indrale & Ors.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the District Government Pleader forwarded Appeal proposal to the Law and Judiciary Department and same was accepted. Thereafter, Law and Judiciary Department issued sanctioned for preferring the Appeal by its letter dated 20th October, 2008. Since they received letter of sanctioned from Law and Judiciary Department, Office of the Government Pleader, High 3 Civil Appln. No.4641.10 Court by their letter dated 28th November, 2008 called concerned Special Land Acquisition officer to furnish the certified copies of the Judgment and Award, a set of four typed copies of Judgment and Award and other documents. The Government Pleader received the certified copies of Judgment and Award and other documents on 06th February, 2009. Thereafter, the Government Pleader filed above mentioned Appeal in this Court on 20th December,

4. The learned AGP submits that for want of certified copies, Court fees and other documents, it remained on the part of office of the Government Pleader to prefer the appeal in time.

5. Mr. Gunale, learned counsel appearing for respondents-Original claimants vehemently opposed the present Civil Application. The respondents- Original claimants have filed affidavit in reply dated 7th August, 2010 in Civil Application No. 4650 of 2010. The learned counsel submits that 4 Civil Appln. No.4641.10 applicant failed to explain the delay in applying certified copies of Judgment and Award. The Reference Court passed the Judgment and Award on 10th March 2008 and they applied for certified copies on 27th August, 2008. He submits that there is no explanation for this five months delay. He further submits that though the applicant received certified copies on 08th September,2008, they filed the present First Appeal in this Court on 17th December, 2009. There is no explanation for this eleven months delay.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that as applicant failed to explain and disclose the day to day delay, the application deserves to be dismissed with costs.

7. In support of his contention he relied on the Judgment in the matter of State of Maharashtra and others Vs. Vithu Kalya Govari and others reported in 2008(5) Bom.C.R. 323. In that case delay was more than two years and same was not explained 5 Civil Appln. No.4641.10 properly in Civil Application for conondation of delay. Whereas in the present case the delay is less than two years and same is explained.

8. The Apex Court in the matter of N. Balkrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy reported in (1998)7 SCC 123 held that in absence of anything showing malafide or deliberate delay as a dilatory tactics could should normally condone the delay Para No.11, 12 and 12 reads thus: “11.Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. the object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. Law of limitation fixes a life-span for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and the wasted time would never revisit. 6 Civil Appln. No.4641.10 During efflux of time newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a life span must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. Law limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined maxim Interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be putt to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy right of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time.

12. A court knows that refusal to condone would result foreclosing a suitor from putting 7 Civil Appln. No.4641.10 forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. This Court has held that the words "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi Jain Vs. Kuntal Kumari[AIR 1969 SC 575] and State of West Bengal Vs. The Administrator,Howrah Municipality.

13. It must be remembered that in every case of delay there can some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him. If the explanation does not smack of mala fides or it is not put forth as part of a dilatory strategy the court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. But when there is reasonable ground to think that the delay was occasioned by the party deliberately to gain time 8 Civil Appln. No.4641.10 then the court should lean against acceptance of the explanation. While condoning delay the Could should not forget the opposite party altogether. It must be borne in mind that he is a looser and he too would have incurred quiet a large litigation expenses. It would be a salutary guideline that when courts condone the delay due to laches on the part of the applicant the court shall compensate opposite party for his loss.”

9. Considering the averments made by the applicants in their civil Applications, the delay in preferring First Appeal is condoned on payment of costs of Rs. 2500/-in each matter as condition precedent. The cost be deposited in this Court within six weeks from today. If the cost is not deposited within six weeks from today, Civil Applications shall stand dismissed without back reference to the Court. 9 Civil Appln. No.4641.10

10. The respondents-Original claimants are entitled to withdraw the said Cost. . The Civil Application is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- [K. K. TATED, J.] MTK.