Foreign travel not a valid ground for condonation of delay: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court at Goa on Monday held that travelling abroad even to visit family cannot be treated as a sufficient ground for condonation of delay in legal proceedings. [Adolf Olegario Nazareth v The Sarpanch/Secretary, Village Panchayat of Uccassaim-Paliem-Punola].The Court ruled that such travel is a matter of conscious choice and does not qualify as a circumstance that prevents a litigant from approaching the courts on time.The Court made the observation while dismissing a plea filed by 78-year-old Adolf Olegario Nazareth, who sought to challenge an order related to alleged illegal construction.Justice Nivedita P Mehta upheld the District Court’s refusal to condone a 73-day delay in filing a revision application.“Relief under section 5 of the Act is only available to parties that have, out of events or otherwise, circumstances been restrained from agitating their cause in time as prescribed by the applicable law. To travel abroad, notwithstanding whether it may be for reasons of vacation or to visit family or whether synonymous construction of the terms is symptomatic of prejudice, is a matter of conscious decision making that would necessitate, inter alia, booking of flights and grant of visa. If one chooses to act on one of two possible courses of action as a matter of deliberate decision making, it cannot be stated to be difficulty in approaching the Courts,” the High Court stated..The matter arose from a complaint filed by Antonio Jose D’Souza, who alleged that Nazareth had carried out illegal construction. The Deputy Director of Panchayats ruled in favour of D’Souza and Nazareth’s subsequent appeal was dismissed by the Additional Director of Panchayat-I. Nazareth then sought to challenge those decisions through a revision application before the District Court in Panaji but filed it after a delay of 73 days. When the lower court declined to condone the delay, Nazareth approached the High Court..Nazareth claimed the 73-day delay was due to unavoidable circumstances, including late receipt of the certified order, legal advice to wait until after the court vacation, and foreign travel to visit family. He also cited jet lag, misplacement of documents and limited mobility due to age and heavy rains. In response, D’Souza’s counsel said the delay was part of a pattern of inaction, with the petitioner having “slept on his rights,” and warned that reopening the matter would unjustly revive settled issues, especially since part of the demolition was already carried out.The High Court noted that although courts should adopt a liberal approach in appropriate cases, the explanation provided in the present case did not meet the threshold of “sufficient cause.” .The Court was not convinced that the misplacement of the certified copy or the five-day period cited for recovering from jet lag justified the lengthy delay. It also questioned why the revision plea was filed nearly three months after the court vacation ended and without any cogent explanation. The claim that monsoon rains and old age had impeded legal action was similarly found unpersuasive, especially in the absence of any indication that the petitioner’s counsel was prevented from filing the application.While acknowledging that justice should not be sacrificed at the altar of technicalities, the Court emphasized that the law of limitation serves a vital public function by ensuring finality and discouraging endless litigation. The Court also endorsed the District Judge’s remark that “this is not the conduct of a prudent man.”Hence, the High Court dismissed the petition, reiterating that discretionary relief under limitation law is not available in cases of avoidable delay stemming from voluntary decisions..Advocate JA Lobo appeared for petitioner Adolf Olegario Nazareth.Advocate VA Lawande with advocate Atul Sadre appeared for the respondents. .[Read Judgment]