Sufficiency of cause does not give indefeasible legal right to ‘perpetual litigant’: HC

The Punjab and Haryana high court (HC) has rapped the Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam (UHBVN) for delay in challenging a lower court order stating that even sufficiency of cause does not result in any indefeasible legal right to a “perpetual litigant” such as UHBVN

The Punjab and Haryana high court (HC) has rapped the Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam (UHBVN) for delay in challenging a lower court order stating that even sufficiency of cause does not result in any indefeasible legal right to a “perpetual litigant” such as UHBVN.

The court observed that the explanation given by the UHBVN does not inspire confidence as specific dates have not been given to explain each day’s delay. (Getty Images)

“It is high time that a lax litigant pays the price for casual and nonchalant approach in instituting time-bound cases in courts, particularly as enlightened a litigant as the UHBVN,” the bench of justice Arun Monga said.

An order was passed in 2017 by an additional civil judge (senior division), Karnal in a dispute between the UHBVN and a private person and was asked to refund Rs1.76 lakh towards penalty and compounding fees of Rs20,000 deposited with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. It was upheld on August 6, 2019 by additional district judge, Karnal.

However, the UHBVN approached the HC this month after a delay of 132 days. The UHBVN had sought that the plea be admitted for hearing as the delay was due to delay in procurement of some documents and last year’s Covid-19 restrictions. Hence, it has been filed now.

The court observed that the explanation given does not inspire confidence as specific dates have not been given to explain each day’s delay. It said part delay may have been caused due to the pandemic slowdown, which though seems justifiable, but prior to that the appeal had already become time-barred.

It observed that the court has discretion to condone the delay, provided sufficient cause for the same is made out. But mechanical reasons have been given as explanation as if to seek condonation of delay is a “matter of right”.

“...a perpetual litigant due to nature of its business, and legally backed up with an entire vertical of department’s in house law officers giving them advice at every step, apart from worthy outsourced panel lawyers,” the bench said adding that despite the same, if delay is caused at the cost of forfeiture of vested legal right it has to be deprecated. “Delay is thus akin to self-goal. Consequences thereof have to be suffered and most certainly, there cannot be any premium on a self-goal,” the bench added, dismissing the plea.