2015 (3) TMI 64 - SC - Indian Laws

Delay in filing appeal - Misplacement of the papers - Section 5 of the Limitation Act - Held that - Unfortunately, the learned Single Judge of the High Court altogether ignored the gapping holes in the story concocted by the Corporation about misplacement of the papers and total absence of any explanation as to why nobody even bothered to file applications for issue of certified copies of judgment for more than 7 years. In our considered view, the cause shown by the Corporation for delayed filing of the appeals was, to say the least, wholly unsatisfactory and the reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge for condoning more than 7 years delay cannot but be treated as poor apology for the exercise of discretion by the Court under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The impugned order is set aside and the appeals filed by the respondent against the judgments of the trial Court are dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeals.
2. Legality of the notices issued under Section 314 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888.
3. Entitlement to alternative accommodation.
4. Maintainability of the suit without notice under Section 527 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888.
5. Entitlement to relief.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeals
The primary issue was whether the cause shown by the Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai (the Corporation) for condoning a delay of 7 years and 108 days in filing appeals was sufficient under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Corporation argued that the delay was due to the misplacement of papers and the transfer of the concerned advocate. The High Court condoned the delay, citing a liberal approach in such matters to serve the ends of justice. However, the Supreme Court found the explanation unsatisfactory, noting that the Corporation failed to provide crucial details such as when the papers were misplaced, who misplaced them, and when they were found. The Court emphasized that the successful litigant had acquired certain rights based on the trial court's judgment, and the delay was not justified.

2. Legality of Notices Issued Under Section 314 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888
The appellants sought a declaration that the notices issued by the Corporation for the demolition of properties were illegal and not binding. The trial court found in favor of the appellants, declaring the notices illegal, bad in law, and issued with malafides. The Corporation did not challenge this finding within the prescribed period, leading to the appeals being filed after a significant delay.

3. Entitlement to Alternative Accommodation
The appellants argued that the Corporation's action was discriminatory as other individuals affected by road widening were allowed to construct mezzanine floors and were allotted alternative accommodation. The trial court agreed, ruling that the appellants were entitled to alternative accommodation. The Corporation's delay in appealing this decision further complicated the matter.

4. Maintainability of the Suit Without Notice Under Section 527 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888
The Corporation contended that the suit was not maintainable as the appellants had not given notice under Section 527 of the Act. However, the trial court found the suit maintainable, and this issue was not effectively contested by the Corporation within the limitation period.

5. Entitlement to Relief
The trial court decreed the suits, granting the relief sought by the appellants, which included the declaration of the notices as illegal and the entitlement to alternative accommodation. The Corporation's failure to file timely appeals meant that the trial court's judgments stood unchallenged for over seven years.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the cause shown by the Corporation for the delayed filing of appeals was wholly unsatisfactory. The High Court's decision to condone the delay was deemed a poor exercise of discretion under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's order, and dismissed the Corporation's appeals against the trial court's judgments. The parties were left to bear their own costs.

← Previous Next →