Emphasizes importance of timely action in legal matters
PANAJI
The High Court of Bombay at Goa has ruled that travel abroad, even to visit family, along with factors like jet lag, misplaced documents, and bad weather, cannot justify delays in legal proceedings.
The bench, led by Justice Nivedita P Mehta, made the remarks while dismissing a writ petition filed by 78-year-old Adolf Olegario Nazareth. He had requested a 73-day delay to be excused in filing a revision application regarding orders related to alleged illegal construction.
The Court stated that such travel is a conscious decision and does not prevent a person from approaching the court on time. “Travelling abroad, whether for a holiday or to visit family, is a deliberate choice that involves planning, such as booking flights and securing a visa. If someone decides to travel, it cannot be considered a reason for not approaching the courts,” the bench noted.
Nazareth went to the High Court after the District Court refused to excuse the delay. He claimed the delay was caused by multiple factors, including his travel abroad, jet lag, misplacement of the order he wanted to challenge, and limited mobility due to his age and bad weather. He also stated he was advised to wait until after the court vacation to file the petition.
However, the High Court found that while some of these reasons could be considered as “sufficient cause” on their own, the overall explanation was not convincing. Justice Mehta noted, “The petitioner’s claim is weakened by the fact that five days passed while recovering from jet lag.” She also emphasised that delays caused by such factors cannot be accepted when people delay taking action on their legal rights.
The Court was also critical of the delay in obtaining a second certified copy of the order. It said Nazareth had not explained why the initial misplacement or the process of getting a duplicate should cause such a long delay. “The fact that the certified copy was misplaced and a second one had to be requested only added to the delay,” the Court observed.
Regarding the court vacation, the Bench noted that the petitioner waited nearly three months after the vacation ended to file the appeal and did not offer a convincing explanation for the delay. “This further weakens the petitioner’s case,” the Court said.
While acknowledging the difficulties caused by Nazareth’s restricted movement due to age and weather, the Court stated that it could not understand why his lawyer could not act on his behalf.
The case involved allegations of illegal construction, with a complaint filed by Antonio Jose D’Souza. The Deputy Director of Panchayats had ruled in D’Souza’s favour. The Court agreed with the District Judge’s comment that “this is not the conduct of a prudent man.”
