2015 (9) TMI 117 - SC - Indian Laws

Condonation of delay - Sufficient cause - Held that - admittedly earlier objection filed by the Respondent-State under Section 47 of the Code was dismissed on 17.8.2010. Instead of challenging the said order the Respondent-State after about one year filed another objection on 15.9.2011 under Section 47 of the Code which was finally rejected by the executing court. It was only after a writ of attachment was issued by the executing court the respondent preferred civil revision against the first order dated 17.8.2010 along with a petition for condonation of delay. Curiously enough in the application for condonation of delay no sufficient cause has been shown which entitle the respondent to get a favourable order for condonation of delay. Decree passed in the year 1967 was in respect of declaration of title and permanent injunction restraining the Respondent-State from interfering with the possession of the suit property of the plaintiff-appellant. It is evident that when the State tried to interfere with possession the decree holder had no alternative but to levy the execution case for execution of the decree with regard to interference with possession. In our opinion their delay in filing the execution case cannot be a ground to condone the delay in filing the revision against the order refusing to entertain objection under Section 47 CPC. This aspect of the matter has not been considered by the High Court while deciding petition for condoning the delay. Merely because the Respondent is the State, delay in filing the appeal or revision cannot and shall not be mechanically considered and in absence of sufficient cause delay shall not be condoned. - Decided in favour of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing revision petition, Condonation of delay, Judicial discretion in condoning delay, Government's role in litigation, Pragmatic approach in justice, Sufficient cause for delay.

Analysis:
The judgment involves the issue of whether the delay in filing a revision petition should be condoned. The case originated from a suit filed in 1967, resulting in a decree in favor of the plaintiff-appellant. The respondent-state filed objections challenging the decree's executability, which were dismissed. Subsequently, the respondent filed another objection, which was also rejected. The respondent then filed a civil revision petition against the initial order, seeking condonation of delay. The District Judge initially stayed the order, but later allowed the limitation petition and condoned the delay. The High Court upheld this decision, emphasizing a liberal attitude in condoning delay for the government. However, the Supreme Court held that while courts should adopt a pragmatic approach, serious laches and negligence by the State cannot justify condonation of delay. The Court emphasized that delay should not be mechanically condoned without sufficient cause, especially when the State fails to challenge a decree promptly. The judgment highlighted the importance of public justice perspective and the need for a balanced approach in condoning delays, ultimately setting aside the High Court's decision and rejecting the condonation of delay in filing the revision petition.