2008 (11) TMI 611 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the averments disclosed any sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay of 1724 days in filing the appeals.? Held that - The respondent beneficiary was not diligent in availing the remedy of appeal. The averments made in the application seeking condonation of delay in filing appeals do not show any acceptable cause much less sufficient cause to exercise courts discretion in its favour. Thus the High Court gravely erred and exercised its discretion to condone the inordinate delay of 1724 days though no sufficient cause has been shown by the applicants. It is for that reason, we interfere with the decision of the High Court and set aside the same. Appeal allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Incorrect statements in the application for condonation of delay.
2. Proper exercise of discretion by the High Court.
3. Sufficient cause for not preferring the appeals within the prescribed time.
4. Public interest and involvement of public money.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Incorrect Statements in the Application for Condonation of Delay:
The respondent, a beneficiary of the land acquisition, was impleaded as a party in the reference cases and had filed a written statement opposing the claim for enhanced compensation. However, in the application for condonation of delay, the respondent falsely claimed unawareness of the judgment and award. The court found this statement to be incorrect, as the Law & Judiciary Department had communicated its decision not to appeal against the Reference Court's award to all concerned, including the respondent, within 15 days of the award. The respondent's failure to act on this communication and initiate steps for filing appeals indicated a false stand to bypass the limitation period. The court emphasized that encouraging such falsehood undermines the legal process.

2. Proper Exercise of Discretion by the High Court:
The High Court acknowledged that the respondent was aware of the Reference Court's judgment and the Government's decision not to appeal. Despite this, the High Court condoned the delay, which the Supreme Court found to be an improper exercise of discretion. The court noted that discretion must be exercised judicially and not arbitrarily. Since the High Court had already found the respondent's plea of unawareness to be baseless, it should have refused to condone the delay. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's discretion was exercised on wrong principles, making its order susceptible to correction.

3. Sufficient Cause for Not Preferring the Appeals Within the Prescribed Time:
The respondent failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the 1724-day delay. The Reference Court's award was passed on 09.03.2000, and the Government decided not to appeal on 13.04.2000. Despite subsequent correspondence and directions to obtain legal advice, the respondent did not take timely action to file appeals. The court emphasized that the law presumes parties know their rights and must act diligently. The respondent's negligence and lack of prompt action indicated an absence of sufficient cause for condoning the delay. The court reiterated that delay defeats equity and that legal remedies must be pursued promptly.

4. Public Interest and Involvement of Public Money:
The respondent argued that public interest and public money involvement warranted condoning the delay. However, the court held that laws of limitation are based on public policy and are meant to ensure prompt legal remedies. Pursuing stale claims does not serve public interest, and settled legal rights should not be disturbed without proper cause. The court noted that while the State may be given some latitude, the law of limitation applies equally to government and private parties. In the absence of proven fraud or collusion, the court found no basis to condone the delay on public interest grounds.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court erred in condoning the inordinate delay of 1724 days without sufficient cause. The appeals were allowed, and the High Court's decision was set aside. The court emphasized the importance of timely legal action and the need for judicial discretion to be exercised properly.

← Previous Next →