0

Section 5 Of Limitation Act Applicable To Proceedings Under Railway Claim Tribunal Act, 1987: Allahabad High Court

Blog , ,

CASE TITLE: M/S Krishak Bharti Co-Operative Ltd.Kribhco Surat Gujarat v. Union Of India Thru G.M. Northern Eastern Railway Gorakhpur [FAFO No. – 236 of 2002]

DECIDED ON: 16.08.2023

CORAM: Hon’ble Ajay Bhanot,J

INTRODUCTION

The application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has been affirmed by the Allahabad High Court in relation to proceedings governed by the Railway Claim Tribunal Act, 1987 and the Railway Claim Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989.

Justice Ajay Bhanot, presiding over the bench, was overseeing an appeal stemming from a claim application submitted before the Railway Claim Tribunal. The application was dismissed due to non-prosecution. Following this, the claimant submitted a request for the restoration of the claim application. However, this request was rejected due to being beyond the permissible time limit.

FACTS

The appellant submitted a compensation claim to the Railway Claims Tribunal’s Lucknow Bench (“Railway Tribunal”) following the demise of his son. However, due to a lack of prosecution, the claim was dismissed on 09.02.2000. Subsequently, eight months later, on 04.10.2000, the appellant lodged an application for restoration. Rule 18 of the Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989 specifies a 30-day timeframe for submitting an application to reverse a default dismissal order. The Railway Tribunal declined the restoration application due to it being beyond the allowable time limit.

In response to the decisions made by the Railway Tribunal, the appellant initiated an appeal in the High Court.

CASE ANALYSIS AND DECISION

The court drew upon precedents from the Gujarat High Court, specifically the cases of Shyam Santaram Sali (Marathi) v. Union of India and Dharmesh Madhubhai Parmar v. Union of India. In these cases, it was established that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable to proceedings governed by the Railway Claim Tribunal Act, 1987, in conjunction with the Railway Claim Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989.

The court acknowledged that the case had been transferred from Gorakhpur to Lucknow, and due to an administrative oversight, this transfer was not communicated to the appellant. Consequently, his absence on the day of the case’s dismissal was beyond his control.

The court noted that the application for condonation of delay demonstrated a valid and sincere reason for the delay, with no intention to cause it. The court further recognized the appellant’s consistent diligence in pursuing his claim. The court emphasized that when substantive rights are at stake, the primary focus should be on ensuring justice rather than barring claimants on technical grounds.

The court held that given the presence of a valid reason for the delay, the Railway Tribunal should have granted condonation for the delay.

As a result, the court nullified the decision to reject the application for delay condonation and reinstated the case for a comprehensive review on its merits.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Click to View the Judgement.

Written by- Mansi Malpani

 

0

Until the appellant gives the sufficient cause for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, it cannot be condoned: Gujarat High Court

Blog , ,

State Of Gujarat vs Lajbarkhan Sherdalkhan Pathan on 12 April, 2023

Bench: Honourable Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18903 of 2021

Facts

The respondent possessed a plot of land and his name was shown in the revenue record as a farmer. In the year 1989, the present petitioner – Government Authority came to the plaintiff’s place and issued notice for vacating the said land within seven days, without following any procedure, and removed some part of the hut. Therefore, the plaintiff filed a suit before the competent Civil Court for declaration and permanent injunction, along with an application for injunction. However, the Government Authority had chosen not to appear and contest the said suit. The trial Court therefore, allowed the suit ex-parte and granted permanent injunction and directed the Government Authority not to take possession of the land in question from the plaintiff, without following due process of law. There was no challenge by the State Authority against the same before any higher forum till date and hence the judgement attained finality

The respondent then filed another suit before the competent Civil Court to declare him the owner of the land in view of adverse possession as he was in its possession for the past 61 years as well as for permanent injunction. However, no appearance was made by the Government authority and therefore, the trial Court directed to hear the suit ex-parte. Ultimately, the trial Court passed the judgment in favour of the respondent and decreed the suit

After a delay of 3230 days, the State Authority then finally filed an application for condonation of delay and preferred an appeal against the judgment passed by the trial Court.

However, the Government Authority / Government Pleader  failed to appear and therefore, the rights of the State were closed at each stage of the proceeding, after giving ample opportunity and thus the appellate Court rejected the application made by the Government authority for condonation of the delay. It is this order impugned, which is challenged by the State Authority before the present Court in the petition after about 9 years.

The counsel for the Government authority submitted that there was a revenue distribution of territorial jurisdiction of Ahmedabad which bifurcated it into 4 zones due to which an urgent requirement of establishment of authorities for all 4 zones had arisen. The bifurcation of the zones consumed some time and only then did the authorities have a chance for the demarcation of the revenue jurisdiction. Hence, in the process of establishment of the offices, the records, documents and all the other connected things were either shifted or were in process of being shifted which took considerable time.

He contended that the appellate Court below had not rightly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case and the reasons given by the Government authority in the application for condonation of delay and that the delay should be considered liberally

Judgement

The Court after going through the case held that despite sufficient opportunities having been given, theState Authorities had not appeared before the trial Court which compelled it to hear the matter exparte. Even after the verdict, the Government authority failed to challenge it and thus it attained finality which shows the marked incompetence of the authority to act in a timely manner.

The Court held that all these facts signify that there are wilful latches and negligence on the part of the state authority and for these reasons, the present petition is devoid of merits and therefore, the Court dismissed it accordingly.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY AMIT ARAVIND

click here to view judgement

 “PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”