2010 (10) TMI 1036 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether to uphold the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Allahabad or to restore the order dated 24.02.1992 passed by the Additional District Judge, Allahabad? Whether it would be open to the defendant to move an application for condonation of delay before the District Judge?

Summary

Issues:
Determining whether to uphold the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Allahabad or to restore the order dated 24.02.1992 passed by the Additional District Judge, Allahabad.

Analysis:
1. The respondent filed suit no. 508 of 1983 seeking a declaration as a co-sharer in a property. An ex parte decree was passed in favor of the respondent on 10.05.1988, which the appellants sought to set aside through a recall application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, rejected on 04.05.1989. The appellants filed an appeal, which was allowed by the District Court on 04.01.1991.

2. The High Court noted the pecuniary jurisdiction issue, as the appeal value exceeded Rs. 20,000, necessitating High Court jurisdiction. However, during proceedings, the District Court's pecuniary jurisdiction increased to Rs. 5 lacs. The High Court allowed the appellants to move an application for condonation of delay before the District Judge.

3. The appellants filed an application under Section 5 read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act, which the respondent objected to, citing lack of good faith and diligence. The appellants claimed they were misled by counsel regarding jurisdiction, while the respondent argued the appellants were aware of the suit but failed to contest it.

4. The High Court found the appellants negligent and lacking diligence. Despite objections on jurisdiction, the appellants pursued the case in the wrong forum, leading to an order in their favor. The High Court held that the appellants' conduct lacked due diligence and they had been pursuing the matter negligently.

5. The appellants' delay in filing applications and lack of diligence throughout the proceedings were highlighted. The High Court rejected subsequent applications due to laches. The Supreme Court concluded that the appellants' conduct lacked due diligence and dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's order.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no reason to interfere with the High Court's detailed order, as the appellants had displayed negligence and lack of due diligence throughout the legal proceedings.