20/04/2022

Mere fact that a party is a senior citizen and could not contact his Counsel itself is no ground for condoning the delay – State Bank of India Vs. Giridhari Sahoo – DRAT Kolkata Bench

DRAT Kolkata Bench observes that it appears that DRT had placed reliance upon the ground that Respondent No. 1 being a senior citizen, could not contact his Counsel. Mere fact that Respondent No. 1 is a senior citizen and could not contact his Counsel itself is no ground for condoning the delay. Settled law is that each and every day delay is to be satisfactorily explained by the Applicant. Although, it is true that DRT can travel beyond the scope of Civil Procedure; only fetter put on its power is that principles of natural justice should be observed. But at the same time, it does not mean that DRT should exceed its jurisdiction without any sufficient cause having been shown by the Applicant. Sufficient cause has to be shown by the Applicant and facts and circumstances of each case must contain certain grounds to enable the Court to exercise discretion; for the reason that whenever the Court exercises discretion, it has to be exercised judicially.
Further, it observed that DRT had exceeded its jurisdiction by entering into the merits of the case. It is settled law that when an application for condonation of delay, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, is moved, it is to be seen as to whether sufficient cause is shown for condoning the delay; merits of the case have no role to play. But, in the present case, it appears that Tribunal below, in allowing the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, has also gone into and considered the merits of the matter. This is against the law.

Mere fact that a party is a senior citizen and could not contact his Counsel itself is no ground for condoning the delay – State Bank of India Vs. Giridhari Sahoo – DRAT Kolkata Bench Read Post »

Scroll to Top