2001 (7) TMI 1309 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
The issues involved in the judgment include the application for setting aside an ex-parte decree, delay in filing the application, interpretation of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and the exercise of judicial discretion in condoning the delay.

Application for Setting Aside Ex-Parte Decree:
The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit under Order 33 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking possession of agricultural land. The trial court decreed the suit ex-parte as the appellant's counsel did not appear, leading to the appellant filing an application to set aside the decree after a delay of 554 days. The appellant contended that he was unaware of the decree due to lack of communication and sought condonation of the delay.

Interpretation of Section 5 of the Limitation Act:
The judgment delves into the interpretation of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, emphasizing that the court's discretion to condone delay should advance substantial justice. Citing precedents, the court highlights that the acceptability of the explanation for delay is crucial, and the length of delay is not determinative if no malafide intent is present. The court stresses the importance of liberal construction of "sufficient cause" to serve the interests of justice.

Judicial Discretion in Condoning Delay:
The court underscores that the discretion to condone delay is pivotal in advancing substantial justice. It mentions that the court should not lightly disturb the legal right accrued to the decree-holder by lapse of time, but should consider compensating the opposite party for litigation expenses. The judgment emphasizes that the court's discretion in condoning delay is a matter of substantial justice and should not be disturbed unless on untenable grounds.

Decision and Order:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders impugned and granting the appellant's application for condoning the delay and setting aside the ex-parte decree. The court imposed exemplary costs of &8377; 50,000 to be paid within 30 days, emphasizing the importance of vigilance in legal matters and the need to balance the interests of both parties.