2000 (9) TMI 1042 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
The issues involved in this case are the filing of an appeal out of time without an application to condone the delay, the interpretation of Rule 3-A of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the consequences of not complying with the requirements of the said rule.

Facts:
A suit was filed by the respondents against the State of Madhya Pradesh and a Sales Tax Officer for a declaration of title and injunction regarding a residential building. The suit was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and an appeal was filed before the District Court, which reversed the decision and remanded the case for disposal on merits. The appellants then filed a second appeal before the High Court challenging the District Judge's decision, but there was a delay in filing the appeal without an accompanying application to condone the delay.

Judgment:
The High Court dismissed the second appeal on the ground that it was presented without the required application to condone the delay, citing Order 41 Rule 3-A of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appellants argued that the High Court's interpretation of the rule was too narrow and that the court had the power to condone the delay if a reasonable explanation was provided. The Supreme Court analyzed the relevant rules in the Code and emphasized that the word "shall" in Rule 3-A should be interpreted as an obligation on the appellant, not as a punitive measure.

Precedents and Interpretation:
The Supreme Court discussed various decisions by different High Courts regarding the interpretation of Rule 3-A, highlighting conflicting views on whether non-compliance at the initial stage was fatal. The Court emphasized that the rule aims to inform the appellant of the need to explain the delay and to signal to the respondent that the appeal may not be entertained without such an application. The Court concluded that the deficiency of not filing the application initially is a curable defect, and if the required application is subsequently filed, the appeal can be considered lawfully presented.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and remanding the case for the High Court to consider the application to condone the delay. If the explanation for the delay is found satisfactory, the second appeal should be disposed of in accordance with the law.