Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
ASHIS KUMAR HAZRA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
RUBI PARK CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/05/1997
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
We have heard learned counsel.
Under Section 95(3) of the West Bengal Co-operative
Societies Act, 1983 any claim which arises between the
society and its members etc. is required to be laid within
two months from the date of the notice for arbitration.
Notice was given on October 26, 1974 and the suit was filed
on the original side of the Civil Court on September 10,
1975. Under sub-section (3) of Section 95, if an application
is filed explaining properly the delay, the Court has been
given power for condoning the delay. The High Court has held
ultimately that the proceedings laid in the original side of
the suit is not maintainable. However, since the petitioner
was bona fide prosecuting the claims before the Civil Court,
under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, the said period may
be condoned. On an application having been properly made,
since the application came to be filed, the Registrar has
dismissed the petition saying that explanation was not
properly given and, therefore, he refuse to condone the
delay, The writ petition was dismissed in Civil Order No.
346/1993 dated August 12,1996. Thus, this special lave
petition.
Shri R.C. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner,
contends that the High Court having held that since the
petitioner was bona fide prosecuting the proceedings, under
Section 14, the time spent for that purpose has to be
excluded, the Registrar was wrong in refusing to condone the
delay. We find no force in the contention. From September
10, 1975 till the date of disposal of the matter in the High
Court on the civil side, by operation of the direction
issued by the High court under Section 14 of the Act, the
said period stands excluded. However, the explanation for
period of delay from September 10,1975 till the date when
civil suit came to be filed is required to be explained. The
limitation prescribed is only two months after notice.
Unless proper explanation is given. the valuable right has
been created in favour of the respondents under section 3 of
the limitation Act, it is the duty of the Court to ensure
that unless proper explanation is given the valuable right
cannot be defeated. Considered from this perspective, the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
Registrar was right in not condoning the delay.
The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.