1. This revision petition is directed against the order and judgment dated 19.9.2003 passed by learned A.D.M. (Judicial), Aizawal, in Misc. Case No. 1 of 2002 arising out of R.F.A. No. 1 of 2002 of his Court.
2. The respondent, M/s. Shanti Stores, brought a suit, Money Suit No. 14 of 1996, claiming a sum of Rs. 3,22,922/- as additional amount due from the shopkeeper's insurance policy. The shop of the respondent was gutted by fire during communal disturbance on 27.9.1994.
3. The claim was contested by the present petitioner/insurer pleading, inter alia, full and final settlement satisfaction of the claim of insurance policy on receipt of Rs. 2,45,658/- by the plaintiff/respondent. But the Trial Court overruling the objections decreed the suit. Being aggrieved the petitioner presented a memorandum of appeal registered as R.F.A. No. 1 of 2002, along with petition for condonation of delay of 75 days in presenting the appeal. The petition for condonation of delay was registered as Misc. Case No. 1 of 2002 before the learned A.D.M. (Judicial), Aizawal. The petition for delay being dismissed this revision petition has been filed on several grounds as given in the revision petition.
4. I have heard learned Counsels appearing for both sides.
5. It appears from the impugned judgment that learned Court below did not scrutinize the matter in proper perspective and dealt with the same in a most casual manner. There was no discussions whether the cause shown was sufficient or not in order to condone the delay. The relevant part of the judgment goes as follows:
It appears that when the company received the impugned judgment it may contact its legal expert on telephone to seek his advice and I am of the opinion that the cause of the delay mentioned by the learned Counsel for appellant is not based on reasonable grounds for delay.
6. It also appears from the impugned judgment that opposite party did not place before the Court below arguments in order to convince that Court that cause shown for delay was not sufficient. Rather the submission was made that if the delay is condoned the opposite party will suffer irreparable loss. But not mentioning how and why?
7. Learned Counsel appearing for the present petitioner has relied upon laws reported as and (2000) 9 SCC 106. On the other hand learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party has referred me to citations and . Hon'ble Apex Court held in Vedabai @ Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil v. Shantaram Baburao Patil and Ors. (2001) 9 SCC 106, that principle of advancing substantial justice is of prime importance when construing the expression
"Sufficient Cause", and held as below:
5. In exercising discretion under Section 5 of the Limitation Act the Court should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case the consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a relevant factor so the case calls for a more cautious approach but in the latter case no such consideration may arise and such a case deserves a liberal approach. No hard and fast rule can be laid down in this regard. The Court has to exercise the discretion on the facts of each case keeping in mind that in construing the expression ""Sufficient Cause"", the principle of advancing substantial justice is of prime importance.
The similar opinions were expressed by the Apex Court in other two case laws cited. However, I find that laws relied upon by opposite party stand on different footing. In it was held that the High Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of facts of any inferior Court in absence of any perversity. In the instant case 'perversity' has been alleged by the petitioner stating that there was no judicial consideration of the submissions placed before the Court of learned Additional District Magistrate, Aizawal. Then speaks on the same footing and accordingly also has no application here. is in relation to a petition under Article 227 of Constitution and it was stated therein that power of High Court under Article 227 is wider than that under Section 115 of C.P.C. and High Court cannot assured appellate powers to correct a very mistake of law, here is, before us no question of mistake of law, but a question of appreciation of facts given/relied upon to explain the undisputed delay of 75 days in presenting the appeal.
8. In course of arguments learned Counsel appearing for the objector has admitted the position that even it is accepted that there was a "cause" for not preferring appeal till 19.3.2002 when the Advocate of the petitioner submitted his opinion, even then thereafter there was further delay till 18.4.2002 when the appeal was presented. There was no dispute that the appeal was presented on 18.4.2002. It was stated in the petition for condonation of delay that after receiving opinion of the Counsel on 19.3.2002 the case record was sent back by the Divisional Office at Guwahati to his Silchar office on 27.3.2002 and Silchar office in turn forwarded the file back to Aizawal office which received the same on 8.4.2002. And then the records were handed over to the Advocate, who took some time for drafting the appeal and presented it on 18.4.2002.
9. I find, under the facts and circumstances stated above, the 'cause' shown is sufficient and delay should be condoned. It is also pertinent to note that there is substantial question of law involved here in view of the facts of the acceptance of the conditional offer of the petitioner, as full and final satisfaction of the claim, by the respondent/plaintiff but thereafter presenting the suit, may be on re-thinking for again. If the appeal is not decided on merits there is a possibility of substantial injury being caused to petitioner and justice may suffer, particularly taking note of Section 7 of the Indian Contract Act. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in his 'legal opinion', Annexure 5, had stressed upon this point of law, referring to , that 'if a person accepts an amount and gives a valid discharge by signing the receipt, he cannot make a fresh claim later'. It is also opined that a mere endorsement of 'received under protest' may not change the legal position.
10. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order and judgment dated 19.9.2002 passed in Misc. Case No. 1 of 2002 by the learned Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Aizawal, is set aside. Delay in presenting the appeal is condoned and it is directed that the appeal will be heard by Court below on merits.
Comments