KAL CABLES PVT. LTD Vs GUNA CABLE VISION ( M.GUNSEELAN PROPRIETOR )

Kal Cables Pvt. Ltd. … Petitioner Vs. Guna Cable Vision (M. Gunseelan Proprietor) … Applicant/ Respondent

BEFORE:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, MEMBER

For Petitioner : Mr Ajay Kumar, Advocate

For Respondent : Mr Sharath Sampath, Advocate Ms Kavya Singh, Advocate

JUDGMENT

1. This Miscellaneous Application No. 417/2025, moved by Applicant/Review Applicant/ Respondent in main Petition, is with a prayer for condonation of delay, under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963, in filing this Review Petition, with a contention that Judgment, dated 30.05.2025, which is a subject matter of this Review Application, was got delivered in BP No. 201/ 2017, which is Annexure to Review Application. This Judgment, vide Annexure – A1, was sent by Learned Counsel for Respondent to its client, for information and further compliance on 03.06.2025. It was received on 10.06.2025. But, owing to non-versed in English language, this was got translated by local Advocate in its local language within 10 days. But, owing to ongoing vacation, the Counsel for Respondent could not be contacted till first week of July, 2025. Thenafter, draft Review Application was sent on 20th July, 2025. Again, it could got approved by local Counsel in second week of August, 2025 and ultimately, this Review Application was got filed with 69 days delay in Limitation period (in argument this was said to be of 59 days, but written erroneously of 69 days). This delay was owing to above pitiable circumstances of Review Applicant. Hence, this application with above prayer for condonation of delay as above.

2. This has been vehemently opposed by Respondent in Review Petition / original Petitioner, with this contention that these Petitions were heard and decided on merit. The Learned Counsel was present at the time of Judgment. The day to day explanation of this delay is not there in the application. Rather, in all these three Petitions and review filed therein, regarding three different persons, one and common ground has been taken in each of those applications, with no specific mention of name of local Advocate, or the specific reason for this delay. Rather, it is deliberate one, to linger the proceeding.

3. Learned Counsel for Review Applicant/ Applicant of this application, had cited the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in (2002) 3 Supreme Court Cases 195 and (2025) 1 Supreme Court Cases 625, wherein, the law with regard to ‘sufficient cause’ and the Principle of Condonation of delay has been propounded. Whereas, Learned Counsel for Petitioner/ present Opposite Party, has argued that ‘sufficient cause’, should be with bonafide and not with intention to delay the proceeding.

4. Heard Learned Counsels for both sides.

5. Though, condonation of delay or not to condone it, is to be heard and decided for disposal of this Miscellaneous Application, moved under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963, and the merit of Review Application is not to be commented. This Tribunal is conscious of this fact. But, for appreciating the ‘sufficient cause’, bonafide and the constraints for invoking review jurisdiction, which is with very limited scope, propounded in catena of Judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court, as well as Hon’ble High Courts, is also to be commented. More so, when Learned Counsel for Applicant has argued it in the beginning, as well as at conclusion of his argument, and Learned Counsel for Petitioner has replied over it. Under above circumstances, it is apparent that the comment over, at a look over review, is also to be made, but in brief.

6. The ground given in this Miscellaneous Application is vulnerability and no ability to understand the Judgment written in English, compelling Applicant to get it translated in local vernacular language to understand it. Whereas, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for present Applicant had been Counsel in the main Broadcasting Petition and all through this proceeding is in English. Arguments were heard in English, Judgment was delivered in English and the language of this Tribunal is English, having no shorthand steno in any other language other than the English. This Judgment was communicated promptly, by Learned Counsel to its client.

7. The receipt and speed post report, is very well there. Hence, the reason of delay, given as above, in all these three Miscellaneous Applications, connected with each three Review Applications, are not to effect consciences of this Tribunal to accept it. Particularly, on the perusal of impugned Judgment and the Review Application, wherein, the argument is one and common, as had been in the disposal of main Broadcasting Petitions. Reviewing its own Judgment in the sphere of jurisdiction of Appellate Court, on the ground of facts and law, previously argued, and made basis of Judgment, in a detailed and discussed Judgment by this Tribunal, is not permissible in exercise of Review jurisdiction, as per law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court, in Rajender Kumar Vs Rambhai (2002) SCC Online SC

478, as well as law laid down in SLP (C) No. 12787 of 2025, Malleeswari Vs. K. Suguna and Anr., as well as the Judgment of this Tribunal, passed in Review Application No. 9 of 2023 in Broadcasting Petition No. 617 of 2016 on 06.02.2026.

8. Hence, the law propounded by Hon’ble Apex Court, cited by Learned Counsel for Applicant, noted Supra, is the basic Principle of Law, propounded by Hon’ble Apex Court, to be followed by each Court of India, wherein, the ‘sufficient cause’, the reason for delay etc. etc., is to be appreciated by the Court, while exercising jurisdiction, in disposal of application, under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963. But, in the specific facts and circumstances of present application, coupled with the proposed Review Application, contention made therein, as well as the impugned Judgment, wherein, these development is trying to be made, is with ‘sufficient ground’ for dismissal of this application. 9. Accordingly, these applications are being dismissed.

..…………….. (Justice Ram Krishna Gautam) Member 19.02.2026 /BN/