Application to condone the delay in filing the review petition allowed for having sufficient cause- Manipur high court

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL MC[Rev.P.(J2)] No.19 Ref: Rev.Petn. No. in El. Petn. No.17 Through Video Conference) Dr. Khwairakpam Loken Singh aged about 57 years S o Kh. Kulla Singh Resident of Sega Road Tekhellambam Leikai P.S. & P.O. Imphal District Imphal Manipur 795001 …. Applicant s Versus Shri Rajkumar Imo Singh S o R.K. Jaichandra Singh Resident of Sagolband Bijoy Govinda P.O. & P.S. Imphal District ImphalManipur 795001. Respondent s HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN For the Applicant Mr. M. Gunedhor Advocate For the Respondent Mr. H.S. Paonam Sr. Advocate Date of Hearing Judgment & Order MC[Rev.P.(J2)] No.19 Ref: Rev.Petn.(J2) No. in El. Petn. No.17 Page 1 JUDGMENT &ORDER This application has been filed by the applicant to condone the delay of 215 days in filing the review petition against the order dated 15.4.2019 passed in MCNo.118. The applicant is the election petitioner in Election Petition No.5 of the respondent. Heard Mr. M. Gunedhor applicant election petitioner and Mr. H.S. Paonam learned senior counsel for Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that during the proceedings of the election petition he had filed two miscellaneous cases being MCNos.16 and 15 on 10.5.2018 and both the cases were listed on several occasions and heard on different dates. However on 14.1.2019 after conclusion of hearing of MCNo.118 the same was dismissed and against the said order dated 14.1.2019 SLP No.108019 was preferred and same is pending. MC[Rev.P.(J2)] No.19 Ref: Rev.Petn.(J2) No. in El. Petn. No.17 Page 2 Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that while MC(EP) No.16 of 2018 was dismissed MC No.15 of 2018 was not disposed of on the same date and though the first respondent filed objection to MCNo.118 he has not filed objection to MCNo.118. He would submit that after filing SLP the election petitioner was not in communication with his local counsel and on 16.2.2019 when the first respondent filed an application for rejecting the list of documents filed by the election petitioner the applicant came to know about the order dated 15.4.2019. Aggrieved by the order dated 15.4.2019 the applicant is preferring a review to review the order dated 15.4.2019 with a delay of 215 days. According to learned counsel for the applicant the delay that has occasioned in preferring the review petition is not intentional not willful and mala fide and that the delay was absolutely because of the non communication to the applicant by his local counsel and as such the review petition could not be filed immediately. Arguing so learned counsel the applicant prays condonation of the delay of 215 days in filing the review petition. On the other hand learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that as early as on 25.9.2018 the main election petition was taken Up on board and learned counsel appearing for the parties have also appeared Subsequently hearing MC[Rev.P.(J2)] No.19 Ref: Rev.Petn.(J2) No. in El. Petn. No.17 Page 3 was taken up on 27.11.2018 along with MCNos.16 and 118 and order in respect of MCNo.118 was passed on 14.1.2019 rejecting the same. Aggrieved by the same the election petitioner preferred SLP. 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 the main election petition along with the connected MC No.15 of 2018 could be taken up only in April 2019 and on 15.4.2019 MC No.15 of 2018 was also dismissed by observing that the connected MC No.i6 of 2018 being rejected and the pending MCNo.118 was also liable to be rejected. Mr. H.S. Paonam learned senior counsel next submitted that in the main election petition list of documents and witnesses of respective parties have been filed on 21.10.2019 and this Court have directed for producing 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. He would submit that when the petitioner attempted to mark documents which were already rejected by this Court in MCNos.16 and 118 the first respondent filed MC MC[Rev.P.(J2)] No.19 Ref: Rev.Petn.(J2) No. in El. Petn. No.17 Page 4 EP) No.27 of 2019 praying for rejecting of the list of documents filed by the election petitioner. According to learned counsel instead filing any objection to the said application the election petitioner filed the present application for condonation of delay of 215 days for seeking to review the order dated 15.4.2019 passed in MCNo.118. The Learned Sr. counsel then submitted that since 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 for is well within the knowledge of the election petitioner the present application for condonation of delay is liable to be rejected. According to learned counsel the applicant has failed to show the sufficient cause for the delay. In support he has relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Balwant Singh dead) v. Jagdish Singh and others 8 SCC 685 and University of Delhi v. Union of India and others 13 SCC 745. This Court considered the submissions raised by the parties and also perused the materials available on record. The applicant has primarily filed this application seeking to condone the delay of 215 days in filing the review order dated 15.4.2019 MC[Rev.P.(J2)] No.19 Ref: Rev.Petn.(J2) No. in El. Petn. No.17 Page 5 passed in MC No.15 of 2018 on the ground that he 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 filed an application for rejecting the list of documents filed by the election petitioner. It appears that the pending election petition the applicant took out two applications namely MC No.16 of 2018 and MC No.15 of 2018 for calling for certain documents from the respective authorities indicated in the schedule and upon receipt of the same to take certified copies thereof. Admittedly by the order dated 14.1.2019 MC No.16 of 2018 was dismissed against which the applicant has filed SLP and the same is pending. Subsequent to the dismissal of MC No.16 of 2018 on 15.4.2019 MC EP) No.15 of 2018 was dismissed by this Court. The order dated 15.4.2019 reads thus: “This Court by an order dated 14.01.2019 dismissed the MC El.Petn.) No.16 of 2018 having the same prayer as it is sought for in the present MC No.118. MC[Rev.P.(J2)] No.19 Ref: Rev.Petn.(J2) No. in El. Petn. No.17 Page 6 Hence this MCNo.118 is also dismissed as it has the same prayer and relief as sought for in MC No.118. MC stands dismissed as above.” Taking advantage of the dismissal of MCNos.16 and 15 of 2018 the applicant seeks rejection of the documents filed along with the election petition as the same has been denied by this Court vide orders dated 14.1.2019 and 15.4.2019 respectively in MCNo.219 and by way of separate order this Court dismissed the said application on the ground that while dismissing MC No.16 of 2018 this Court observed that the documents in Schedule I are official documents and if need arises during the course of the trial a responsible officer working in the Election Commission of India can be examined as witness to verify the factum of the said documents being issued by the Election Commission of India. This Court has not curtailed and or prevented the election petitioner from proceeding with the trial of the election petition and also not prevented the election petitioner from marking documents. In the order dated 14.1.2019 this Court clearly stated that since the existence of the documents was not denied by the applicant herein the same are not required to be called for. When such being the observation of MC[Rev.P.(J2)] No.19 Ref: Rev.Petn.(J2) No. in El. Petn. No.17 Page 7 this Court it cannot be said that since the prayer for calling for the documents was rejected the election petition has to be dismissed or be kept in abeyance as trial cannot be proceeded. In fact as against the order dated 14.1.2019 passed in MC No.16 of 2018 the election petitioner has preferred SLP No.108019 and admittedly the same is still pending. Coming to the delay occurred in filing the review application is concerned this Court finds that the reason stated by the applicant is satisfactory and reasonable. It is also admitted by the first respondent that on the date of passing order in MCNo.118 order in MCNo.15 of 2018 has not been passed and order in the said application was passed on 15.4.2019. The applicant also pleads that there was no communication from his counsel and therefore the delay occurred in filing the review application. To rebut the same the first respondent has not produced any material. Therefore this 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 words “sufficient cause for not making the application within the period of limitation” should be understood and applied in a reasonable MC[Rev.P.(J2)] No.19 Ref: Rev.Petn.(J2) No. in El. Petn. No.17 Page 8 pragmatic practical and liberal manner depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case and the type of cases. The words “sufficient cause” in Section 5 of Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as 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 In the instant case it is not the case of the first respondent that the applicant has adopted dilatory tactics. The law is well settled that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. 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. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done the application for condoning delay has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient Cause is shown then the Court has to inquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. As stated supra the applicant has explained the cause for such delay and considering all relevant facts this Court is of the view that the MC[Rev.P.(J2)] No.19 Ref: Rev.Petn.(J2) No. in El. Petn. No.17 Page 9 applicant has shown sufficient cause for excusing the delay and accordingly this Court exercising its discretion is inclined to condone the delay. No prejudice would be caused to the other side if the delay is condoned. On the other hand if the delay is not condoned the applicant would be put to irreparable loss and damage as it appears from the order dated 15.4.2019 that the same has been passed in view of the dismissal order passed in MCNo.118. Further the order dated 14.1.2019 in MCNo.118 is now under challenge before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP. In order to give a chance to the applicant and also taking note of the over all circumstances of the case the delay in filing the review application to review the order dated 15.4.2019 passed in MCNo.118 is condoned and the present application is liable to be allowed. Accordingly this Misc.Case in MC No.1 of 2019 is Registry is directed to issue copy of this order to both the parties allowed. No costs. through their whatsapp e mail. Larson MC[Rev.P.(J2)] No.19 Ref: Rev.Petn.(J2) No. in El. Petn. No.17 Page 10 

Summary: 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. Click here to read the judgement