Sikkim High Court
Review Pet./1/2017 of Mala Rai Vs Bal Krishna Dhamala on 18 May 2017
order in pursuance of order dated 12-08-2014 Page | 1 Review Pet. No.01 of 2017 and I.A. No.01 of 2017 Smt. Mala Rai vs. Shri Bal Krishna Dhamala BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE S. K. AGNIHOTRI HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI, JUDGE 04. 18-05-2017 Present : Dr.
Review Pet. No.01 of 2017 and I.A. No.01 of 2017
Smt. Mala Rai vs. Shri Bal Krishna Dhamala BEFORE
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE S. K. AGNIHOTRI HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI, JUDGE
04.18-05-2017Present : Dr. (Mrs.) Doma T. Bhutia and Ms. Rachhitta Rai, (Rai, J.) Advocates for the Petitioner. (Rai, J.) Advocates for the Petitioner.
Petitioner in person.
Mr. Zangpo Sherpa and Mr. Jushan Lepcha, Advocates for the Respondent.
Respondent in person.
--------
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The instant Application has been filed by the Petitioner seeking condonation of delay of 211 days in filing the Review Petition. The grounds urged therein are that the Petitioner being an uneducated house-wife was unaware of the provision for review of Judgment dated 16-06-2016, pronounced by the Division Bench of this Court in Mat.App. No.01 of 2015. On coming to learn of such a provision after six months of the impugned Judgment, she approached the Learned Counsel in December, 2016, consequent upon which on 07-12-2016, she applied for certified copies of the relevant documents, which were made ready on 17-12-2016. This Court was, however, closed for Winter Vacation from 18-12-2016 to 12-02-2017 on account of which the Review Petition could not be filed. Added to the above woes, the Counsel engaged, had to rush out of station to attend to her ailing mother-in-law and hence, the delay. The grounds put forth revealing “sufficient cause”, it is prayed that the delay be condoned.
2.
2. Per contra, resisting the stand of the Petitioner, it was submitted that the grounds are insufficient for condoning the delay as during the entire aforesaid Appeal till pronouncement of the impugned Judgment, the Applicant was represented by a Counsel made available by the Sikkim State Legal Services Authority (SLSA) thus, she could well have sought legal advice immediately from her Counsel or approached the SLSA. That, the Registry of the High Court remains open irrespective of the fact that the Court closes for Vacation. As the Petitioner has failed to make out “sufficient cause” for condonation of delay, the Petition deserves dismissal.
3. We have heard Learned Counsel at length and given due consideration to their rival contentions.
4. While considering the Application for condonation of delay, the expression “sufficient cause” should be given a liberal interpretation to ensure that substantial justice is done, but only so long as negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides cannot be imputed to the party concerned. This has been clearly laid down in the decision of Basawaraj and Anothervs. Special Land Acquisition Officer : (2013) 14 SCC 81.
5. The grounds as put forth by Learned Counsel for the Petitioner do not cut ice with this Court as it is apparent that she was represented throughout by a Counsel during the Appeal, made available to her by the SLSA. She was, therefore, not debarred from seeking legal advice from the same Counsel immediately on pronouncement of the impugned Judgment. The allegation that the filing could not be done on account of the Court being closed for Winter Vacation is indeed appalling as it is common knowledge that throughout the Vacation, the Registry is open for the purposes of filing and other urgent matters.
6. Bearing in mind the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that grounds put ds forth in the Application for condonation of delay have failed to make out “sufficient cause” and thus do not deserve any consideration. Application is accordingly dismissed.
7. Consequently, the Review Petition also stands dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
Judge Chief Justice
18-05-2017 18-05-2017
Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No