1

THE COURT OF SHRI SHIVAM SINGH, JMFC, PATNA

Complaint Case No. 12516/2022

In the matter of an application

under section 142 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act read
with section 5 of Limitation Act

And

In the matter of

Samim Ansari ………

Complainant

Versus

Ashok Nandan Sahay …….

Accused

The humble limitation petition

on behalf of the complainant
above named:

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:-

1. That the present application under section 142 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act read with section 5 of the
Limitation Act is being filed for condoning a delay of five
days, which has occurred in filing of the present complaint
case, which was not intentional and has occurred because
of the circumstances which were beyond the control of the
complainant.
 2

2. That it is stated that the present complaint case was filed on

01.11.2022 against the accused person named in the
column 2 of the present complaint petition for taking
cognizance and issuance of summons to him under section
138 of N.I. Act, and section 406, 420 of IPC for facing trial
and after completion of trial, convict the accused person
for commission and omission of aforesaid offences which
have been committed by him willfully.

3. That it is stated that after serving the notice dated

12.09.2022 for cheque bouncing, the father of the
complainant got sick and the complainant got busy looking
after the health of his father.

4. That it is stated that in the meanwhile the accused Ashok

Nandan Sahay also requested the complainant not to file
any case and assured the complainant that he will return
back the complainant’s money.

5. That the complainant respectfully submits that the power to

condone the delay in approaching the Hon’ble Courts is
conferred upon the courts to enable them to administer
justice on merit. It is recommended to have adequately
liberal approach and it is further commented that the
expression “sufficient cause” is elastic to enable the courts
in applying the law in a manner to sub serve the ends of
justice. It is useful in this regard to reproduce extract of
the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court at Para 11
in the case of State of Bihar and Ors. Vs. Kameshwar Pd.
Singh and analogous case reported in 2000 (3) PLJR (SC)
81.

“....Power to condone the delay in approaching the

court has been conferred upon the courts to enable them
to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters
 3

on merits. This Court in Collector, Land Acquisition,

Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors [1987 (2) SCR 387]
held that the expression ‘sufficient cause’ employed by the
legislature in the Limitation Act is adequately elastic to
enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner
which sub serves the ends of justice – that being the life
purpose of the existence of the constitution of courts. It
was further observed that a liberal approach is adopted on
principle it is realized that:

a) Ordinarily a litigant does not stand of benefit by

lodging an appeal late.

b) Refusing to condone delay can result in a

meritorious matter being thrown out at the very
threshold and cause 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.

c) ‘Every day’s delay must be explained’ does not

mean that a pedantic approach should be made.
Why not every hour’s delay, every seconds delay?
The doctrine must be applied in a rational common
sense pragmatic manner.

d) When substantial justice and technical

considerations are pitied 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 non-deliberate
delay.

e) That no presumption that a delay is occasioned

deliberately, or on account of mala fides. A litigant
 4

does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In

fact he runs a serious risk.

f) 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…..”

6. That in the case of Spl. Tehsildar, Land Acquisition, Kerala

Vs. K.V. Ayisumma, a case of review, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court observed for liberal approach in appreciating the
grounds for delay by the state. The Hon’ble Supreme Court
observed as follows:

“…… Limitation Act made no distinction between the

State and the citizen. Nonetheless adoption of strict
standard of proof leads to grave miscarriage of public
justice. It would result in public mischief by skilful
management of delay in the process of filing the
appeal. The approach of the Court should be pragmatic
but not pedantic. Under those circumstances, the
Subordinate Judge has rightly adopted correct approach
and had condoned the delay without insisting upon
explaining every day’s delay in filing the review
application…”

7. That the delay in filing of the present application was not

caused by any intentional reasons.

8. That the complainant prays for a liberal and justice oriented

approach in considering the causes behind the delay
even though the same was unintentional, bona-fide and
caused by the reasons beyond the control of the appellant.

9. That it is stated and submitted that the complainant has a

very good case on facts as well as on law.
 5

10. That it is stated and submitted that the complainant would

suffer irreparable loss had this petition be not heard on
merit after condoning the delay that has occurred in filing
the present complaint case.

11. That on facts and circumstances of the case it is just and in

the interest of justice that this learned court may be
pleased to condone the delay in filing the aforesaid
complaint petition.

12. That it is stated and submitted that no other limitation

petition for delay in filing of the said complaint petition has
been filed by the complainant earlier in the present case.

It is therefore, prayed that Your Honour

may graciously be pleased to allow this
application and thereby be pleased to
condone the delay of days that
has occurred in filling of the complaint
petition.

And/or

Pass such other order/orders as your

honour may deem fit and proper.

And, for this, the complainant as is duty bound shall ever pray