1980 (2) TMI 265 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against judgment and decree passed by High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
- Contention regarding occupancy tenants' rights and plaintiff's share in the property.
- Appeal filed before Additional District Judge and subsequent objection raised by plaintiffs.
- Delay in filing appeal before Senior sub-Judge and condonation of the delay.
- High Court's decision to allow the appeal based on condonation of delay.

Analysis:
The appeal in this case was directed against a judgment and decree of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, where the plaintiffs sought a declaration of two-third share in the disputed property. The defendants, claiming occupancy tenant rights, contested the suit. The trial Court accepted the defense partially, decreeing the suit for two-third share only, citing an ordinance declared ultra vires by the High Court. The defendants then filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, which was objected to by the plaintiffs on jurisdictional grounds. The appeal was returned, and subsequently filed before the Senior sub-Judge with a delay of 185 days, which was condoned based on bona fide advice and pursuit of remedy in good faith.

The plaintiffs appealed to the High Court, which allowed the appeal solely on the ground that the Senior sub-Judge was not justified in condoning the delay. However, the Supreme Court found this reasoning flawed, emphasizing that the litigants may have been unaware of the change in the forum's jurisdiction. The Court highlighted the entitlement of litigants to exclude time taken in bona fide civil proceedings, as per Sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act. Consequently, the Senior sub-Judge's decision to condone the delay was deemed valid, and the High Court's decision was overturned.

As a result, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and decree, remanding the case for disposal on merits and in accordance with the law. The Court stressed the importance of prioritizing the aged case for prompt resolution. Notably, no costs were awarded in the circumstances.