31 May 2022 12:10 PM GMT
"The Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They virtually take away the remedy. They are meant with the objective that parties should not resort to dilatory tactics and sleep over their rights. They must seek remedy promptly," the Allahabad High Court stressed recently.The Bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed observed thus as it dismissed a revision plea filed by one...
"The Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They virtually take away the remedy. They are meant with the objective that parties should not resort to dilatory tactics and sleep over their rights. They must seek remedy promptly," the Allahabad High Court stressed recently.
The Bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed observed thus as it dismissed a revision plea filed by one Laxman Prashad as barred by limitation. The revisionist had filed the plea with a delay of 756 days.
Essemaitll, the revision plea was moved against a January 2014 order of Principal Judge, Family Court, Mirzapur directing the revisionist to pay maintenance allowance to his wife at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month from the date of application and the remaining balance amount be paid in four equal installments, every three months within a period of one year.
Against the said order of the Family Court, the revisionist had filed an application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. which was rejected by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mirzapur in October 2015.
He further submitted that he reached Allahabad in March 2016 and thereafter, again went back to Mirzapur for taking some relevant papers and finally came to Allahabad in April 2016 and after preparing the instant revision, filed the same along with the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
At the outset, the Court noted that the explanation given in the affidavit accompanying the delay condonation application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 was neither acceptable nor trustworthy.
"The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. The statute relating to limitation determines a life span for such legal remedy for redress of the legal injury, one has suffered. Time is precious and the wasted time would never revisit. During efflux of time, newer causes would come up, necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a life span must be fixed for each remedy. An unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The statute providing limitation is founded on public policy," the Court further remarked.
The Court further stressed that when an action becomes barred by time, the Court should be slow to ignore delay for the reason that once limitation expires, another party matures his rights on the subject with the attainment of finality.
"If the explanation does not smack of lack of bona fide, the Court should show due consideration to the suiter, but, when there is apparent casual approach on the part of suiter, the approach of Court is also bound to change. A lapse on the part of the litigant in approaching Court within time is understandable but total inaction for a long period of delay without any explanation whatsoever and that too in absence of showing any sincere attempt on the part of the suiter, would add to his negligence and would be a relevant factor going against him," the court observed as it did not find any reason to exercise its judicial discretion exercising judiciously so as to justify condonation of delay in the instant case.
Accordingly, the application for condonation application was rejected and the revision plea was dismissed.
Case title - Laxman Prashad v. State of U.P. and Another [CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 273 of 2016]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 270
Click Here To Read/Download Order