Condonation of delay

Application for bringing on record the Legal representative of the appellant – Explained delay should be clearly understood in contradistinction to inordinate unexplained delay -- Delay is just one of the ingredients which has to be considered by the Court -- In addition to this, the Court must also take into account the conduct of the parties, bona fide reasons for condonation of delay and whether such delay could easily be avoided by the applicant acting with normal care and caution -- Statutory provisions mandate that applications for condonation of delay and applications belatedly filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation for bringing the legal representatives on record, should be rejected unless sufficient cause is shown for condonation of delay -- Applications cannot be allowed as a matter of right and even in a routine manner -- An applicant must essentially satisfy the above stated ingredients; then alone the Court would be inclined to condone the delay in the filing of such applications. Balwant Singh v. Jagdish Singh & Others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 325 (SC).

Delay of 778 days in Application for bringing on record the Legal representative of the appellant -- Except for a vague averment that the legal representatives were not aware of the pendency of the appeal before the Court, there is no other justifiable reason stated in the one page application -- No reason or sufficient cause shown as to what steps were taken during this period and why immediate steps were not taken by the applicant, even after they admittedly came to know of the pendency of the appeal before the Court -- It is the abnormal conduct on the part of the applicants, particularly son who had appeared in the trial and was fully aware of the proceedings, but still did not inform the counsel of the death of his father – No ‘sufficient cause’ for condonation of delay of 778 days in filing the application. Balwant Singh v. Jagdish Singh & Others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 325 (SC).

Punjab Rent Act -- Leave to defend – Limitation – Tenant is required to appear before the Controller and apply for leave to contest the same within 15 days of service of the summons -- Rent Controller being a creature of statute can only act in terms of the powers vested in him by statute and cannot, therefore, entertain an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay since the statute does not vest him with such power. Om Prakash v. Ashwani Kumar Bassi, 2011(1) L.A.R. 109 (SC).

Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 -- Election petition – Even if the writ petition has been dismissed with liberty to file election petition even than granting of liberty to file election petition does not amount to condonation of delay -- In any case, the election petition is to be treated and tried like a civil suit to which provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act would not apply for the purposes of extending the period of limitation. Gurvinder Singh v. Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal (SDM),Dhuri and others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 167 (P&H).

Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 -- Election petition has to be filed within 45 days from the date of election of the returned candidate and there is no scope for any extension of time -- If the election petition is not filed within period of limitation, then there is no alternative with the Election Tribunal but to dismiss the election petition. Major Singh v. Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal (A.D.C). Sangrur and others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 174 (P&H).

Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 -- Limitation – Election petition was required to be filed within 45 days -- Limitation cannot be extended in any manner. Suresh Kumar v. Sham Lal and others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 100 (P&H).

Special Leave petition – Acquisition of the land by the DDA -- Neither the Land Acquisition Collector nor the Reference Court gave opportunity to the DDA to adduce evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation -- High Court did not issue notice to the DDA apparently because it was not a party to the proceedings -- Notwithstanding this, the DDA has been asked to release Rs.14 crores and odd for payment of compensation to the respondents -- Permission to file the special leave petitions granted to DDA – Delay of 372 days condoned. Delhi Development Authority v. Bhola Nath Sharma (Dead) by L.Rs. and others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 590 (SC).