2011 (5) TMI 900 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the limitation period of one month prescribed under Order XLI Rule 22 (1) of CPC shall run from 12.9.2001 as contended by learned government advocate or from the date of service of notice of date of hearing of appeal fixed by the court, as contended by the learned advocate of the landowner? If the limitation of one month prescribed under Order XLI Rule 22(1) of CPC did not begin to run with effect from 12.9.2001, whether the alternative argument by way of explanation offered by the cross objectors would constitute sufficient cause warranting condonation of delay in filing the cross objection?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Order XLI Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
2. Limitation period for filing cross-objections under Order XLI Rule 22.
3. Whether sufficient cause was shown for condonation of delay in filing cross-objections.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Interpretation of Order XLI Rule 22 of the CPC
The Supreme Court examined the legislative scheme and principles governing the application of Order XLI Rule 22 of the CPC. The Court emphasized that procedural laws are intended to facilitate justice and should be interpreted to achieve this object. The Code of Civil Procedure is designed to regulate judicial proceedings to achieve justice and expeditious case disposal. The Court noted that procedural laws should not be construed in a manner that would prevent the adjudication of substantial rights on merits. The provision under Order XLI Rule 22 allows respondents to file cross-objections within one month from the date of service of notice of the day fixed for hearing the appeal or within such further time as the Appellate Court may see fit to allow. The rule does not specify adverse consequences for not filing within the stipulated time, indicating that the Court has discretion to permit late filings.

Issue 2: Limitation Period for Filing Cross-Objections
The Court clarified that the limitation period for filing cross-objections under Order XLI Rule 22 starts from the date of service of notice of the day fixed for hearing the appeal. The Court noted that the purpose of this notice is to provide the respondent a reasonable opportunity to file cross-objections. However, if a respondent appears and argues at the admission stage of the appeal, the limitation period starts from that date. The Court highlighted that the appeal should be heard expeditiously, and procedural laws should be interpreted to avoid unnecessary delays.

Issue 3: Sufficient Cause for Condonation of Delay
The landowners (cross-objectors) argued that the limitation period should not start until an actual date for hearing was fixed and notice was served. They also contended that they had shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing cross-objections. The High Court had dismissed their application for condonation of delay, finding the explanation vague and insufficient. However, the Supreme Court held that procedural laws should be interpreted to achieve justice. The Court found that the landowners had participated in the proceedings and had knowledge of the appeal, which should be considered as notice for the purposes of Order XLI Rule 22. The Court concluded that the High Court should have exercised its discretion to condone the delay, given the circumstances.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the landowners' appeal, set aside the High Court's order dismissing the cross-objections, and condoned the delay in filing the cross-objections. The Court directed the High Court to hear the appeal of the State and the cross-objections of the landowners afresh, emphasizing the need for expeditious disposal of the matter.