Bombay High Court importing ruling on considerations for computation and condonation of delay –
By the exparte judgment and decree dated 11.4.2022, Special Civil Suit NO.1322 of 2016 of the respondent – plaintiff was decreed.
The appellant – defendant filed appeal. However, there was delay in filing the said appeal. Therefore, the appellant filed Civil Misc. Application No.484 of 2023 for condonation of delay in filing the said appeal on the following averments / grounds –
On 9.12.2022, application for condonation of delay in filing appeal was uploaded on e-filing portal of the District Court. The number was generated. However, it was not actually registered.
On 20.1.2023, the application for certified copies of the ex parte judgment and decree was made.
On 12.4.2023, the certified copies were given.
However, the Registry refused to register the application in view of objections.
The appellant once again filed Civil Misc. Application NO.484 of 2023 for condonation of delay of 298 days in filing the civil appeal.
By the impugned order dated 18.12.2023, the said application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was rejected on two grounds –
- There was actually delay of 409 days and not 298 days. Therefore, there was wrong computation of period of delay.
- Wrong number of suit was mentioned in the delay condonation application.
The first Appellate Court computed the period of 409 days delay from uploading of the ex parte judgment on 5.5.2022 on the website.
HELD that the appellant ought to have been more vigilant in indicating correct number of days of delay and also mentioning correct suit number. However, the errors committed out of inadvertence on both the fronts could not alone have been the reason for rejecting the application for condonation of delay. Moreover, the facts stated were not considered. No attempt was made to examine the justification given by the appellant. Powers of the Court to condone the delay in approaching the Court has been conferred to do substantial justice to the parties. The exercise of discretion must necessarily depend upon sufficient cause shown and degree of acceptability of explanation, the length of delay being immaterial. The first Appellate Court has unnecessarily harped on the inadvertence committed by the appellant.
Judgment dated 30.1.2024 in Second Appeal No.05 of 2024 of Gloob Interior Designs Pvt Ltd Vs. Ashoka Tiles through its Partner
