Ashis Kumar Hazra vs Rubi Park Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. & Ors.
- SCC(1997) 6 SCC 26
- Neutral1997 INSC 477
- AIRAIR 1997 SC 2724
- SCR[1997] Supp (1) SCR 85
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a statute prescribes a short limitation period for filing a claim and creates a valuable right in favour of the party against whom the claim is brought upon expiry of that period, the court must ensure that the limitation period is strictly observed. Mere bona fide prosecution of proceedings before a court, even if it results in exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act during the pendency of those proceedings, does not justify condonation of delay in filing the claim within the statutory period prescribed by the substantive statute, unless proper explanation is furnished for the delay that accrued before the proceedings were commenced. The burden lies on the party seeking condonation to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in initiating the claim within the prescribed timeframe, and the court must guard against defeating the valuable statutory right created in the opposite party by permitting unexplained delay.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
RESPONDENT: RUBI PARK CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/05/1997
BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R We have heard learned counsel.
Under Section 95(3) of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 any claim which arises between the society and its members etc. is required to be laid within two months from the date of the notice for arbitration. Notice was given on October 26, 1974 and the suit was filed on the original side of the Civil Court on September 10, 1975. Under sub-section (3) of Section 95, if an application is filed explaining properly the delay, the Court has been given power for condoning the delay. The High Court has held ultimately that the proceedings laid in the original side of the suit is not maintainable. However, since the petitioner was bona fide prosecuting the claims before the Civil Court, under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, the said period may be condoned. On an application having been properly made, since the application came to be filed, the Registrar has dismissed the petition saying that explanation was not properly given and, therefore, he refuse to condone the delay, The writ petition was dismissed in Civil Order No. 346/1993 dated August 12,1996. Thus, this special lave petition.
Shri R.C. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the High Court having held that since the petitioner was bona fide prosecuting the proceedings, under Section 14, the time spent for that purpose has to be excluded, the Registrar was wrong in refusing to condone the delay. We find no force in the contention. From September 10, 1975 till the date of disposal of the matter in the High Court on the civil side, by operation of the direction issued by the High court under Section 14 of the Act, the said period stands excluded. However, the explanation for period of delay from September 10,1975 till the date when civil suit came to be filed is required to be explained. The limitation prescribed is only two months after notice. Unless proper explanation is given. the valuable right has been created in favour of the respondents under section 3 of the limitation Act, it is the duty of the Court to ensure that unless proper explanation is given the valuable right cannot be defeated. Considered from this perspective, the Registrar was right in not condoning the delay.
The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free