Delhi Develpoment Authority v. M/S Aadhar Stumbh

G.S. SISTANI, J. August 20, 2010 'msr'

02. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Judgment 20th August, 2010 + RFA NO 352/2009 DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Petitioner Through : Ms. Geeta Mehrotra, Adv. versus M/S ADDHAR STUMBH ..... Respondent Through : Mr. Vivekanand, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes + CM NO.14009/2010. 1. This is an application filed by the appellant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of 233 days delay in filing the present appeal. 2. In this case, judgment and decree was passed by learned Additional District Judge on 23.8.2008. The present application does not state as to when certified copy of the decree were applied. The grounds for condonation of delay are set out in paragraphs 4 to 6 of this application, which are reproduced below: "4. That after receiving the certified copy of the Judgment, the file was sent to AE III for his comments on 27.10.2008. 5. That immediate action and necessary follow up of the case at different stages has been done by the Divisional staff after receipt of the file from the sub-division. The decision was finally taken for filing the appeal on 28.7.2009 and the case was entrusted to the present counsel for the appellant. 6. That thereafter after receiving the case files and certified copy, the counsel for the appellant prepared the appeal and the same is being filed. There is about 233 days delay in filing the appeal. The appellant took time because the file goes through proper channel to take the decision as to whether an appeal is to be filed." 3. I have heard counsel for the parties and given my thoughtful consideration to the matter. In the case of Love Kumar Sethi Vs. M/s Deluxe Stores & Ors., reported at 145 (2007) DLT 275 (DB), wherein the delay of 146 days were not condoned as the appellant had failed to provide the necessary documents in support of the grounds for delay. The Division Bench has held that the appellant has not satisfied the Court regarding there being sufficient cause as the facts must inspire confidence. In the case of Ramey vs. M.C.D., reported at 134 (2006) DLT 106 (DB), wherein delay was not condoned and it was held as under: 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to two judgments of the Supreme Court, namely, Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. v. Mst. Kastiji and Ors., reported as AIR 1987 SC 1353 and Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamoorthy reported as VII (1998) SLT 334 = IV (1998) CLT 63 (SC) = 1998 (7) SCC 123 wherein it has been held that the court should adopt a liberal approach while disposing of applications for condensation of delay and that the word "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance the cause of substantial justice. 5. We have perused the aforementioned judgments. There is no doubt that it is settled law that as against a technical and pedantic approach of throwing out a party on grounds of delay and laches, ends of justice are better met by rendering a decision on merits. 6. At the same time, we would also like to refer to a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Salil Dutta v. T.M. and M.C. Private Ltd. reported as JT 1993 (4) SC 528, wherein, while distinguishing the decision in Rafiq and Anr. v. Munshilal and Anr. reported as AIR 1981 SC 1400, it was observed as below: The advocate is the agent of the party. His acts and statements, made within the limits of authority given to him, are the acts and statements of the principal i.e. the party who engaged him. It is true that in certain situations, the Court may, in the interest of justice, set aside a dismissal order or an ex- parte decree notwithstanding the negligence and/or misdemeanour of the advocate where it finds that the client was an innocent litigant but there is no such absolute rule