Kumar Hazra Vs. Rubi Park Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. & Ors  INSC
506 (5 May 1997)
RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA
O R D
E R We have heard learned counsel.
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.
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.
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.
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 Registrar was right
in not condoning the delay.
special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.