Application to condone the delay in filing the review petition allowed for having sufficient cause- Manipur high court
Sufficient cause was found in the delay of filing the review petition by 215 days and application was allowed by a single judge bench of HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN in the case of Dr. Khwairakpam Loken Singh versus Shri Rajkumar Imo Singh (MC[Rev.P.(J2)] No.1 of 2019Ref: Rev.Petn. No.in El. Petn. No.5 of 2017)
The learned counsel for the applicant submits that during the proceedings of the election petition, two miscellaneous cases two cases were filed being MC (EP) Nos.16 and 15, on 10.5.2018 and further submits that the delay that has occasioned in preferring the review petition is not intentional, not willful and mala fide and that the delay was absolute because of the non-communication to the applicant by his local council and as such the review petition could not be filed immediately. The Learned counsel further submitted that since the primary prayer for calling of documents from the election authority has been rejected and the election petitioner has not been able to modify the order from the Apex Court. It is also the main election petition list of documents and witnesses of respective parties that have been filed on 21.10.2019 and this Court have directed for production of P.W. No.1 for evidence on 7.11.2019 and on the request of the election petitioner, the matter was adjourned from time to time.
The learned senior counsel submits that the applicant has not properly explained the reason for causing the delay and since the order dated 15.4.2019 for which review is sought is well within the knowledge of the election petitioner, the present application for condonation of delay is liable to be rejected.
The court considered the submissions raised from both the parties and finds that the application for condonation of delay was filed on the ground that the applicants has no knowledge about the passing of such order and he came to know the order dated 15.4.2019 only on 16.12.2019 when the first respondent applied to reject the list of documents filed by the election petitioner .considering the facts the court is of the view that sufficient cause has been shown by the application for the delay and this Court is also satisfied for the reasons offered by the applicant. The word ‘sufficient cause’ in Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction to advance substantial justice when the delay is not on account of any dilatory tactics, want of bona fides, deliberate inaction, or negligence on the part of the applicant. The proof of a sufficient cause is a condition precedent for the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by Section 5 of Limitation Act.
Accordingly, the court allowed the present application.
Judgement reviewed by Naveen sharma