The Bombay High Court has refused to condone a delay of 73 days in filing Revision Petition observing that liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' cannot counteract want of diligence as it took the litigant five days to recover from Jet lag.

The Court was considering a petition filed challenging Trial Court order that rejected an application seeking condonation of delay of 73 days in filing a Revision Application under Section 201B of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994.

The Bench of Justice Nivedita P. Mehta held, ".....there is no infirmity in the Impugned Order and that a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' cannot be harnessed to counteract a want of diligence on the part of the petitioner."

The Applicant was represented by Advocate J.A. Lobo, while the Respondent was represented by Advocate V.A. Lawande.

Facts of the Case

Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the mind of the Judge was prejudiced as it observed in the impugned order that the delay caused on account of the unavailability of his Counsel is not sufficient as other Counsel could have been engaged in the absence of him. It was thus submitted that it was not reasonable to expect the litigant to seek representation from another dispute, whilst the dispute is ongoing. The Counsel contended that imposition of a cost of ₹25,000/- for a delay of a short quantum of only 73 days. It was his further contention that the visit to family was for a bona fide reason and was not a 'holiday' as mentioned in the impugned order by the Judge with a prejudiced mind.

It was the Petitioner's case that on account of Courts closing for vacations in May and the limitation period expiring on 29.05.2024, his Counsel advised him to reconvene in the last week of May. However, he couldn't make himself available for the month of May because he had to travel abroad to visit his family and he only returned to India on 20.06.2024. He stated that he also misplaced the certified copy and the new one was made available on 16.08.2024. The delay caused in the intervening period between the Petitioner's return from his travel abroad and his meeting with the counsel is attributed to the recovery of the Petitioner from jet lag with the Appeal being ultimately came to be filed on 23.08.2024. It was also stated that July being a month of rainfall restricted the movement of the elderly Petitioner severely contributing to further delay.

Reasoning By Court

The Court was of the view that the misplacement of the certified copy detracts from the case of the Petitioner and what derogates it further is the fact that at least five days elapsed in the course of his recovery from jet lag.

"It is principally true that the relaxation from the timelines as prescribed by the law of limitation cannot be granted to those who sleep on their rights. Or as the District Judge, rightly said in the Impugned Order, "This is not the conduct of a prudent man," the Court observed.

It further observed that the hostile couldn't possibly have restricted the Petitioner's Counsel from acting on his behalf. The Court noted that since the Appeal was filed three months after the court vacations were over, it disparages his case more.

Noting that although the law of limitation is rooted in public policy and the spirit would dictate that the legal rights ought to be enforced in a court of law within a time frame and that litigation cannot be permitted to be suspended in a state of endless continuity, the Court stated that an argument for a liberal construction of 'sufficient cause' cannot be used to jettison the law of limitation itself.

The Petition was accordingly dismissed.

Cause Title: Mr Adolf Olegario Nazareth vs. The Sarpanch/Secretary (2025:BHC-GOA:755)

Appearances:

Petitioner- Advocate J.A. Lobo

Respondent- Advocate V.A. Lawande, Advocate Atul Sadre,

Click here to read/ download Order













Bombay High CourtJustice Nivedita P. Mehta

Sheetal Joon