[2025:RJ-JP:17686] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 101/2022 1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur, Through President Cum Managing Director, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur. 2. Zonal Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur Zone, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur. 3. Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Jaipur Agar, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur. ----Appellants Versus Ramprashad S/o Shri Sita Ram, Age Adult, R/o -7-8, Mansarovar Colony, Shiv Marg, Jhotwara, Jaipur Retired Traffic Inspector, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur Zone Jaipur. ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Om Prakash Sheoran For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rahul Ghiya Mr. Ankul Gupta HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 20/03/2025 1. The instant second appeal is preferred by appellants- defendants after dismissal of Civil Regular Appeal No.3/2020 on 02.09.2021 by learned Additional District Judge No.4, Jaipur Metropolitan-II on ground that the appeal under Section 96 of CPC was filed after delay. 2. Considered submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant while referring order dated 02.09.2021 has submitted that the judgment of trial court was [2025:RJ-JP:17686] (2 of 7) [CSA-101/2022] passed on 21.12.2019 and a certified copy was obtained on 02.01.2020 but a decision to file appeal was taken on 19.02.2020 and an Officer-in-charge was appointed on 13.03.2020 but appeal was filed on 02.07.2020. He submits that learned First Appellate Court has dismissed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act which resulted into dismissal of civil regular appeal No.3/2020. He also submitted that from March, 2020 to July, 2020, the entire country was suffering from pandemic COVID-19 but the appellate court has failed to notice this fact. He also submits that an important right to challenge facts and law before the First Appellate Court was lost due to non application of mind by the First Appellate Court. 4. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for the respondents on the ground that the suit of plaintiff was decreed by learned trial court and identical service matter was decided by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 31.10.2022 in S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.45/2018. He also referred judgment in case of RSRTC and Anr. Vs. Ahok Thanvi and Anr. : Civil Appeal No.205/2010 (dated 20.08.2014) by Hon’ble Supreme Court and submitted that issue relating to pay-scale was already adjudicated and the appeal does not give rise to any substantial question of law. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff has filed an application No.1/2025 under Section 151 CPC for disposal of the instant appeal on basis of the judgment as referred by him. A second appeal cannot be decided on an application under Section 151 of CPC without providing an opportunity of hearing to [2025:RJ-JP:17686] (3 of 7) [CSA-101/2022] appellant has granted under Section 100 of CPC and if the Court finds that the grounds give rise to substantial question of law, then same has to be admitted. 6. The facts giving rise to instant second appeal are that the respondent-plaintiff has filed a Civil Suit No.314/2014 before learned Civil Judge (West), Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur for declaratory relief and same was decreed on 21.12.2019. A first appeal under Section 96 of CPC was filed by defendants (present appellants) and same was dismissed as civil appeal No.3/2020 by learned Additional District Judge No.4, Jaipur Metropolitan-II on 02.09.2021 as barred by limitation. The first appellate court has not considered any factual or legal ground as pleaded by defendants to challenge the judgment and decree dated 21.12.2019. 7. A perusal of order dated 02.09.2021 and the grounds raised herein give rise to following substantial question of law:- (i). Whether the Appellate Court was justified in dismissing civil appeal filed under Section 96 of CPC without considering provision under Section 5 of Limitation Act and also judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No. 3 OF 2020 in re: cognizance for extension of limitation? 8. Admit. 9. Learned counsel for the parties submits that the appeal may be disposed of at this stage only as the appellants-defendants were not afforded an opportunity to challenge the judgment before the First Appellate Court and the appeal was dismissed only on technical grounds. Therefore, the matter may be remitted to [2025:RJ-JP:17686] (4 of 7) [CSA-101/2022] the First Appellate Court for fresh disposal of civil regular appeal within a period of three months. 10. Having considered fact that the judgment and decree of trial court was pronounced on 21.12.2019 and certified copy was received by defendants after winter vacation on 02.01.2020 and administrative decision to file appeal was taken on 19.02.2020, thereafter, Officer-in-charge was appointed on 13.03.2020 and appeal was filed on 02.07.2020. During March, 2020, the country was struck with worldwide COVID-19 Pandemic and Hon’ble Supreme Court in a suo motu writ petition has exempted period of limitation from 15.03.2020 onward till February, 2022. 11. Herein, from 02.01.2020, a period of 30 days is available as period of limitation and afterwards hardly there is a delay of around 45 days. This delay is not too much, in light of fact that appellant is a Government Corporation. 12. In case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag Vs. Katiji AIR 1987 SC 1353, Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down the following principles to allow application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act:- 1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 3. "Every days delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hours delay. every seconds delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. [2025:RJ-JP:17686] (5 of 7) [CSA-101/2022] 4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. 5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. 6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. 13. Again condonation of delay under Section 5 of Limitation Act was considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of P. Subba Reddy (died) by LRs. And Ors. Vs. Special Deputy Collector (LA) 2024 INSC 286 wherein also it was held that unless sufficient cause is shown the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act cannot be allowed. The underlying provisions after harmonious construction of provision of law were formulated in following manner:- (i) Law of limitation is based upon public policy that there should be an end to litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy rather than the right itself; (ii) A right or the remedy that has not been exercised or availed of for a long time must come to an end or cease to exist after a fixed period of time; (iii) The provisions of the L imitation Act have to be construed differently, such as Section 3 has to be construed in a strict sense whereas Section 5 has to be construed liberally; (iv) In order to advance substantial justice, though liberal approach, justice-oriented approach or cause of substantial justice may be kept in mind but the same cannot be used to defeat the substantial law of limitation contained in Section 3 of the Limitation Act; [2025:RJ-JP:17686] (6 of 7) [CSA-101/2022] (v) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence; (vi) Merely some persons obtained relief in similar matter, it does not mean that others are also entitled to the same benefit if the court is not satisfied with the cause shown for the delay in filing the appeal; (vii) Merits of the case are not required to be considered in condoning the delay; and (viii) Delay condonation application has to be decided on the parameters laid down for condoning the delay and condoning the delay for the reason that the conditions have been imposed, tantamount to disregarding the statutory provision. 14. After considering the principle of law has laid down hereinabove indicate that only broad reasons for delay has to be considered while allowing or disallowing application under Section 5 of Limitation Act. Herein, appeal was filed only after the administrative decision was taken and an Officer-in-charge was appointed but thereafter pandemic has hit the country, which resulted into lockdown. 15. The expectation of trial court to explain delay on day to day basis is contrary to settled proposition of law. The applicant or appellant is required to show only sufficient ground for condonation of delay and if the Court is satisfied then application under Section 5 of Limitation Act has to be allowed. 16. Here in this case, the reasons mentioned under Section 5 of Limitation Act before learned Appellate Court were sufficient but approach of learned Appellate Court was too technical and it has resulted into miscarriage of justice. [2025:RJ-JP:17686] (7 of 7) [CSA-101/2022] 17. In view of aforesaid question of law as framed herein above is answered in affirmative in favour of appellants. 18. As a result, the instant second appeal is hereby allowed and judgment dated 02.09.2021 in Civil Appeal No.3/2020 passed by learned Additional District Judge No.4, Jaipur Metropolitan-II is hereby set aside and civil regular appeal filed under Section 96 of CPC by present appellants-defendants is remitted to the Appellate Court for decision afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties. 19. The parties / counsel are required to remain present before learned Appellate Court on 15.05.2025 and the Appellate Court is directed to dispose of the appeal within a period of three months from date of receipt of a copy of this order. 20. Misc. Application No.1/2025 and stay application No.950/2022 stand disposed. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MR/40