2010 (2) TMI 1121 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court was justified in condoning more than four years delay in filing of appeal by the respondents against judgment and decree dated 30.10.2004 passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Gandhinagar ?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. Validity of the High Court's order condoning the delay.
3. Responsibility and accountability of the respondents' officers.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal

The primary issue in this case was whether the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court was justified in condoning a delay of more than four years in filing an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2004 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Gandhinagar in Special Civil Suit No.32 of 2001. The respondents argued that the delay occurred due to internal miscommunication and alleged mischief by some employees, which prevented them from contesting the suit in a timely manner. They filed an application under Order 41 Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of the delay.

Issue 2: Validity of the High Court's Order Condoning the Delay

The High Court condoned the delay by referring to various precedents and making a general observation that "sufficient cause is made out by the applicant for condonation of delay." However, the Supreme Court found that the High Court had erroneously assumed that the delay was only 1067 days, while in reality, it was over four years. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court failed to consider the detailed reply filed by the appellant and wrongly assumed that no reply had been filed. The Supreme Court emphasized that the law of limitation is founded on public policy to prevent parties from resorting to dilatory tactics and to ensure that legal remedies are sought without undue delay. The Court held that the High Court committed a grave error by condoning the delay without properly evaluating the reasons provided by the respondents.

Issue 3: Responsibility and Accountability of the Respondents' Officers

The Supreme Court highlighted that the Law Department of respondent No.1 was aware of the proceedings of both the first and second suits. Despite this, the officers failed to personally contact the advocates or appear before the trial court on any hearing dates. The respondents' application for condonation of delay contained incorrect and misleading statements, suggesting internal mischief without providing any concrete evidence. The Supreme Court concluded that the respondents did not approach the High Court with clean hands and that the delay was not justified. The Court directed that the higher functionaries of respondent No.1 conduct a thorough probe to fix accountability and recover any losses from the defaulting officers after complying with the rules of natural justice.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order condoning the delay, and dismissed the application for condonation of delay. Consequently, the appeal filed by the respondents against the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2004 was dismissed as time-barred. The Court also mandated a thorough investigation into the conduct of the respondents' officers to ensure accountability and recovery of any losses.