2014 (8) TMI 1067 - SC - Indian Laws

Condonation of delay in filing an appeal - prejudice that may be caused to other party - Held that - We are unable to agree with the reasoning of the learned Judge that no litigant ordinarily stands to benefit by instituting a proceeding beyond time. It is common knowledge that by delaying a matter evidence relating to the matter in dispute may disappear and very often the concerned party may think that preserving the relevant records would be unnecessary in view of the fact that there was no further proceeding. If a litigant chooses to approach the Court long after the time prescribed under the relevant provisions of the law he cannot say that no prejudice would be caused to the other side by the delay being condoned. Length of the delay is a relevant matter to be taken into account while considering whether the delay should be condoned or not. It is not open to any litigant to fix his own period of limitation for instituting proceedings for which law has prescribed periods of limitation. The Respondents had filed the suit for specific performance and when the trial Court found that the claim for specific performance based on the agreement was correct but exercised its discretion not to grant the relief for specific performance but grant only a payment of damages and the Respondents were really keen to get the decree for specific performance by filing the appeals they should have shown utmost diligence and come forward with justifiable reasons when an enormous delay of five years was involved in getting its appeals registered. We therefore find total lack of bona -fides in its approach and the impugned order of the High Court in having condoned the delay in filing as well as refilling of 9 days and 1727 days respectively in a casual manner without giving any reason much less acceptable reasons cannot therefore be sustained. - Decided in favor of appellant.

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeals.
2. Condonation of delay in refiling appeals.
3. Compliance with procedural requirements under Order XLI Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure.
4. Applicability and interpretation of Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
5. Impact of delay on the rights of the parties and principles of limitation.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeals:
The appeals involved a delay of 9 days in filing, which the High Court condoned subject to a cost of Rs. 50,000. The Supreme Court noted that the appeals were filed without the mandatory court fee, which was paid later during refiling. The appellants argued that without the court fee, the filing was incomplete, thus the delay should be considered 1825 days. However, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, referencing Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows the court to accept the payment of court fees at a later date, deeming the appeals filed within the due date.

2. Condonation of Delay in Refiling Appeals:
The appeals were refiled after a delay of 1727 days. The High Court condoned this delay, but the Supreme Court scrutinized the reasons provided. The respondents attributed the delay to the previous counsel's negligence and the subsequent difficulty in retrieving documents. The Supreme Court found this explanation unsatisfactory, highlighting the lack of details about the counsel's identity and specific actions taken to rectify the situation. The Court emphasized the need for a convincing explanation for such a prolonged delay, which was absent in this case.

3. Compliance with Procedural Requirements Under Order XLI Rule 3A:
The appellants contended that the appeals were not accompanied by an application for condonation of delay as required by Order XLI Rule 3A, making the filing invalid. The Supreme Court referenced its earlier decision in Pradeep Kumar, stating that failure to file such an application initially is not fatal if subsequently filed before the appeal is rejected. The Court interpreted the rule as directory, not mandatory, allowing for rectification of the defect.

4. Applicability and Interpretation of Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure:
Section 149 empowers the court to permit payment of deficit court fees at a later stage. The Supreme Court applied this provision to deem the appeals filed within the due date despite the initial lack of court fee payment. This interpretation was crucial in rejecting the appellants' argument that the delay should be calculated from the original filing date.

5. Impact of Delay on the Rights of the Parties and Principles of Limitation:
The Supreme Court stressed the principle that limitation laws are based on public policy, ensuring timely pursuit of legal remedies. The Court criticized the respondents' lack of diligence and bona fides in handling the appeals, noting significant prejudice to the appellants who had made substantial investments in the property during the delay period. The Court referenced the maxim "Vigilantibus Non Dormientibus Jura Subveniunt" (the law assists those who are vigilant, not those who sleep over their rights) to underscore the importance of timely action.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court found the High Court's condonation of the delays in filing and refiling the appeals to be unjustified due to the respondents' failure to provide satisfactory explanations. The appeals were allowed, the High Court's order was set aside, and the respondents' appeals were dismissed. The decision emphasized the need for strict scrutiny of delay condonation requests and adherence to procedural rules to maintain the integrity of the judicial process.

← Previous Next →