CASE Relevant Para NOTE

[Link] @ 4. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of LANKA In the case of LANKA
Pathamma v. VENKATESWARLU (D) BY LRS vs STATE OF VENKATESWARLU
[Link] A.P. & OTHERS ([Link].2909-2913/2005 vs. STATE OF A.P.
disposed of on 24.02.2011) has held that (2011) and
Karnataka High concept of "liberal approach", "justice AMALENDU KUMAR
Court oriented approach", "substantial justice" BERA vs. STATE OF
cannot be employed to jettison the substantial WEST BENGAL
Oct 11, 2013 law of limitation. It has been held that (2013), the Supreme
especially in cases where the Court concludes Court emphasized that
that there is no justification for the delay, such while courts may adopt
appeals should not be entertained. It has been a liberal approach to
held by Hon'ble Court in AMALENDU condonation of delay,
KUMAR BERA & AMP; & OTHERS vs substantial law on
STATE OF WEST BENGAL (Civil Appeal No. limitation cannot be
2677/2013 disposed of on 22.03.2013 to the overlooked, particularly
following effect: "We have heard the learned where there is no
counsel appearing for the appellant and the justification for the
learned counsel appearing for the Respondent- delay. The claimant's
State. There is no dispute that the expression request for condonation
'sufficient cause' for the explaining every days' was rejected as she
delay. However, it is equally well settled that delayed applying for a
the Courts albeit liberally considered the certified copy of the
prayer for condonation of delay but in some award from May 31,
cases the Court may refuse to condone the 2011, until April 20,
delay in as much as the Government is not 2012, attributing this to
accepted to keep watch whether the contesting her advocate's
respondent further put the matter in motion. negligence. However,
The delay in official business requires its the court found the
pedantic approach from public justice claimant had been
perspective. in a recent decision in the case of informed of the award
Union of India vs. Nirpen Sharma AIR 2011 in October 2011 but
SC 1237 the matter came up against the order failed to follow up for
passed by the High Court condoning the delay over two months.
in filing the appeal by the appellant-Union of Additionally, she
India. The High Court refused to condone the incorrectly stated that
delay on the ground that the appellant-Union she received the
of India took their own sweet time to reach the certified copy in
conclusion whether the judgment should be September 2012, while
appealed or not. The high Court also it was actually provided
expressed its anguish and distress, the way the in June 2012.
State conduct the cases regularly in filing the Consequently, the court
appeal after the same became operational and deemed her reasons for
barred by limitation." 5. Keeping the the delay
principles enunciated by Their Lordships in unsubstantiated and
the above judgments, when the facts on hand based on falsehoods,
 are examined, it would clearly indicate that leading to the denial of
award in question came to be passed on her request.
31.5.2011. However, claimant did not apply
for certified copy immediately. Thereafter it
was applied after a period of nearly one year
i.e., on 20.4.2012. The reason assigned in the
affidavit supporting the application is the
negligence of the Advocate viz., it is contended
by the claimant that it was the duty of the
Advocate to inform her about the progress of
the case and since she was not informed as to
the status of the case, she could not meet her
Advocate to apply for grant of certified copy.
This contention of the appellant requires to be
examined for purposes of outright rejection
inasmuch as it is duty of the client to approach
the Advocate to find out as to the status of
the case and not vice versa. Even otherwise,
appellant herself admit that her Advocate
had informed her about the passing of the
award in question during second week of
October 2011. Even after being informed, she
did not contact her Advocate for the reason
best known. Again she admits in her affidavit
that she met her Advocate during first week of
January 2012. As to why she had not contacted
her Advocate for a period of two and a half
months, no reasons are forthcoming from the
affidavit. Claimant has stated that she
obtained certified copy during September
2012, which is also falsehood since the
certified copy has been furnished to
the claimant during June 2012, as could be
seen from the certified copy of judgment and
award accompanying the appeal. Hence, the
reason given by the claimant for condonation
of delay is loaded with false statements and as
such, cause for delay cannot be accepted.
RAJ KUMAR litigant/Applicant informed about the status The court highlighted
AGRAWAL v. of the legal proceedings of his case, but it is the applicant's
BILASPUR equally important for the Applicant to be responsibility to stay
DEVELOPMEN vigilant in his case as well, which is however, informed about the
T AUTHORITY completely missing herein. It is true that the status of his legal
(NOW MERGED Applicant has suffered the said disease from proceedings, noting a
IN MUNICIPAL October, 2013 but, it reveals from the record significant lapse of over
CORPORATION that prior to the said period, the five years during which
BILASPUR) Applicant has never approached his Counsel he did not inquire about
Chhattisgarh High regarding the status of his case after his case after initially
Court obtaining the interim relief and kept silent for obtaining interim relief.
almost more than the period of 5 years and 11 The applicant's inaction,
Jan 11, 2019 months, when it was dismissed for his non- despite suffering from a
prosecution on 14.11.2007. It is the duty of the disease since October
Applicant to know about the status of 2013, was deemed
his case and it cannot be accepted that merely insufficient justification
on the assurance of his Counsel, he has not for neglecting to
inquired about his case for such a long communicate with his
period. At this juncture, the principles laid counsel regarding the
down in the matter of Puran Singh and Others case. Referencing the
vs. State of Punjab and Others (supra) are to Supreme Court's ruling
be noted where, the Apex Court in paragraph- in Puran Singh vs. State
12 of its judgment, has observed as under:- of Punjab, the judgment
"12. As such even if it is held that Order 22 of emphasized that while
the Code is not applicable to writ proceedings Order 22 of the Code
or writ appeals, it does not mean that the may not apply to writ
petitioner or the appellant in such writ petition proceedings, the
or writ appeal can ignore the death of the petitioner must act
respondent if the right to pursue remedy even within a reasonable time
after death of the respondent survives. After to substitute heirs after
the death of the respondent it is incumbent on the respondent's death.
the part of the petitioner or the appellant to The court retains
substitute the heirs of such respondent within a discretion to condone
reasonable time. For purpose of holding as to delays in substitution
what shall be a reasonable time, the High applications,
Court may take note of the period prescribed considering the
under Article 120 of the Limitation Act for specifics of each case.
substituting the heirs of the deceased
defendant or the respondent. However, there is
no question of automatic abatement of the writ
proceedings. Even if an application is filed
beyond 90 days of the death of such
respondent, the Court can take into
consideration the facts and circumstances of a
particular case for purpose of condoning the
delay in filing the application for substitution
of the legal representative. This power has to
be exercised on well-known and settled
principles in respect of exercise of
discretionary power by the High Court. If the
High Court is satisfied that delay, if any, in