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.