Delhi High Court: Indolence beyond a point results in forfeiture of rights to secure justice, condonation of delay

The Delhi High Court in the case observed that beyond a point result in forfeiture of the right to secure justice that indolence.

The appellant had filed a Civil Suit but the same was dismissed with liberty to file Regular Second Appeal on 02-04-2018. It was stated that the appellant was suffering from different old age ailments and for the same reason he was not able to approach in court for signing the Regular Second Appeal. was contained in para 12 of the application for condonation of delay, when the appeal was filed, The only explanation for the delay between 2nd April, 2018 and September, 2019.

The Bench observed directing that the counsel for the appellant should be ready to argue the matter on the next date. the Court in its order dated 4th January, 2022, noting the fact that the appeal was filed after a delay of 757 days, and after re-filing delay of 223 days and that there had been no appearance on behalf of appellant on any prior date of hearing, granted a final opportunity to the appellant to make submissions.

The appellant has still not deemed it appropriate to suitably instruct counsel who is appearing on his behalf today who submits that he has been recently engaged by the appellant. Clearly, the appellant is not serious about prosecuting this matter further the court said It is unfortunate that, despite the tenor of the order dated 4th January, 2022.

The process of the court cannot be held at ransom, awaiting the convenience of the appellant the court added Indolence, beyond a point, results in forfeiture of the right to secure justice further the court ordered there being no reasonable explanation for the delay in preferring the present appeal, and learned Counsel being unable to assist the court in this regard, the appeal is dismissed on the ground of delay and non-prosecution.

why the plea was filed in 2018 after three years of the passing of the impugned order there was no such explanation the bench said.

an application under sec. 5 of the Limitation Act 1963, which sought to explain the delay in filing of the appeal essentially by pleading indigence. The appeal was being filed on 23rd September, 2019.

the petition with liberty to file a regular second appeal, if so advised in accordance with the law Leave and liberty was granted as aforesaid and and was permitted to be withdrawn was disposed of by an order dated 2nd April, 2018.

the Court said in this context that at the time of making the aforesaid averments, the appellant was 61 years of age, as per the affidavit filed with the application.

The bench comprising of Justice C Hari Shankar observed before the High Court after nearly three years in 2018 and initially challenging the impugned order dated 30th November, 2015.

In order to obtain instruction from the client therefore again the counsel sought for the adjournment.