Vijay Pal v. Nagar Council, Sunam

acquittal passed by trial Court, Sunam has been condoned. Notice of motion was issued in the revision on 15.2.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that sole ground for condonation of delay was that there was no President in the Municipal Committee for the period from 17.4.2007 to 6.11.2007 and during that period meeting could not be held and because of that reason, revision could not be filed. The meeting of the Municipal Committee was held on 3rd January, 2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that delay of 172 days has wrongly been condoned as in the absence of the President, decision with regard to Crl. Revision No. 413 of 2010 [2] filing of revision could have been taken. Moreover, it was mandatory under Section 25 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 that every Committee is to meet for transaction of business at least once in every month and even in absence of President, Vice-President would officiate for the purpose of meeting. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the new President was elected on 6th November, 2007. The revision petition was not filed immediately after that whereas it was filed on 2nd February, 2008 and no explanation is there for delay of 172 days. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has not considered the pros and cons of the case and delay has been condoned in a mechanical manner without giving any reasonable explanation and order is totally non-speaking one. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon the judgment of this Court in District Manager, Markfed v. Anokh Singh and others 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 138 in support of his contention. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that a detailed order has been passed and the reasons for condonation of delay have been explained by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and this was not the only ground that new President was not elected but a detailed finding has been given and it is for the Court to see whether the reasons given in the application for condonation of delay were sufficient or not. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the Court and as per Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the length of Crl. Revision No. 413 of 2010 [3] delay is not relevant but the explanation of delay is relevant. It is also for the Court to see that if the case is good on merits, the Court is always liberal in condonation of delay and once the Court accepts explanation as sufficient, then it is the result of positive exercise of discretion and the superior court should not disturb such finding unless the discretion is wholly untenable or arbitrary or perverse as held by Hon'ble the Apex Court in N.Balakrishan v. M.Krishnamurthy 1999(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 578. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the impugned order. In this case, respondent filed a complaint under Section 195-A of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 before Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sunam. The trial Court acquitted the petitioner of the charge vide judgment dated 14.5.2007. Respondent filed a revision before the Additional Sessions Judge and an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also filed for condonation of delay of 172 days. The Additional sessions Judge, Sangrur vide order dated 16.1.2010 allowed the application filed by the respondent and condoned the delay of 172 days in filing the revision petition which has been challenged by way of present revision petition mainly on the ground that the reasons given in the application for condonation of delay were not sufficient to condone the delay and discretion has been exercised in an unreasonable manner. T The Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur condoned the Crl. Revision No. 413 of 2010 [4] delay of 172 days in filing of the revision petition by giving a detailed finding which reads as under: “`After giving my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and going through the record of the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case for condonation of delay in filing the revision petition. The statutory bodies cannot act in the absence of resolution. In order to pass resolution for filing of the revision petition it was necessary to hold meeting of the Nagar Council. However, meeting of the Nagar Council could not be held as previous President had resigned on 17.4.2007. Thereafter a new President was elected only in October, 2007. It is a matter of common experience that when the vacancy of the President occurs and representatives of Municipal Council usually keep on changing the sides and in such like circumstances there is no one to take care of the interest of the Nagar Council. New President was elected on October 2007 and thereafter first meeting was held on 3.1.3008 wherein resolution for filing the revision petition was passed. Therefore, revision petition could not be filed earlier on account of technicalities of law which require passing of the resolution by the Nagar Crl. Revision No. 413 of 2010 [5] Council for filing the revision petition by the Nagar Council. It is well settled principle of law that technicalities should not be allowed to come in the way of justice. The petitioner has not derived any benefit by the delay in filing of the revision petition. If the delay is condoned the controversy will be adjudicated upon merits. Hence, I am of the view that it would be proper to condone the delay. Accordingly this issue is decided in favour of the applicant and against the respondent. In view of my findings on issues No.1 the instant application is allowed and delay in filing of the revision petition is condoned.” It has been observed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in N.Balakrishan's case (supra) that length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criteria. Some time delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain cases, delay of a very long range can be condoned because of satisfactory explanation and it is the Court to accept the explanation as sufficient and superior Court should not disturb such finding, much less in revisional jurisdiction unless the discretion is wholly untenable, arbitrary or perverse. In paragraphs 9 and 11 of the Judgement in N.Balakrishan's case (supra), Hon'ble the Supreme Court has Crl. Revision No. 413 of 2010 [6] observed as under: “It is axiomatic and condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the Court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to a want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases, delay of a very long range can be condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory. Once the Court accepts the explanation as sufficient, it is the result of positive exercise of discretion and normally the superior Court should not disturb such finding, much less in revisoinal jurisdiction, unless the exercise of discretion was on wholly untenable grounds or arbitrary or perverse. But it is a different matter when the first Court refuses to condone the delay. In such cases, the superior Court would be free to consider the cause shown for the delay afresh and it is open to such superior Court to come to its own finding even untrammeled by the conclusion of the lower Court. ....xx......x.x.......xx.... “Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy Crl. Revision No. 413 of 2010 [7] 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. The law of limitation fixed a life-span for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and wasted time would never revisit. During the 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. The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim interest reipublicae up sit finis litimum ( it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights 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 every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time.” In view of the above, the explanation for delay set up by Crl. Revision No. 413 of 2010 [8] the respondent appears to be satisfactory and there is no ground which requires any interference in the revision petition. Moreover, the rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties and the object is to provide a legal remedy to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury as has been held by Hon'ble the Apex Court in N.Balakrishan's case (supra). Moreover, the explanation put-forth by the respondent does not smack of mala fide and Section 5 of the Limitation Act is only to advance substantial justice and delay is condoned if sufficient cause is there. Law of limitation is founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim interest reipublicae up sit finis litimum ( it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). The petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE October 27, 2010. raghav