2018 (3) TMI 1796 - SC - Indian Laws

Condonation of delay - delay of 554 delay - cause shown by the appellant as sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act - assessee's prolonged illness during the period in question - HELD THAT - It is not in dispute that the appellant is an old man and in his late sixties. It is also not in dispute that he did suffer heart disease during the relevant period and later he was down with dengue fever. It is also not in dispute that he was hospitalized to get medical treatment for these two ailments for a long time during that period. It is also not in dispute that he was mentally disturbed due to disputes going on in his family and was not able to attend to his day-to-day duties due to his old age and prolonged ailments. High Court did not dispute the genuineness of these facts and nor disputed the genuineness of the documents filed by the appellant in support of the cause pleaded. On the other hand, the High Court found as a fact that the appellant did suffer these ailments. In our opinion, the High Court should have taken liberal view in the matter and held the cause shown by the appellant as sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act and accordingly should have condoned the delay in filing the appeal. One cannot now dispute the legal proposition that the earlier view of this Court that the appellant was required to explain the delay of each day till the date of filing the appeal has since been diluted by the later decisions of this Court and is, therefore, held as no longer good law. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the cause shown by the appellant, which is duly proved by the documents, we are inclined to hold that the cause shown by the appellant for condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the High Court was/is a sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act and, therefore, the application filed by the appellant for condonation of delay of 554 days in filing the appeal deserves to be condoned.

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeal before the High Court.
2. Setting aside the ex parte decree passed by the Family Court.
3. Granting maintenance under Section 26 of the Family Courts Act.
4. Application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeal Before the High Court:
The appellant filed an appeal before the High Court, delayed by 554 days, seeking condonation of the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The High Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay and the appeal, stating that the appellant failed to provide sufficient cause for the delay. The Supreme Court, after considering the appellant's prolonged illness during the relevant period, including heart disease and dengue fever, found the cause shown by the appellant to be genuine. The Court held that the appellant's illness and mental disturbance due to family disputes constituted a sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Consequently, the delay in filing the appeal was condoned, subject to the appellant paying a cost of ?10,000 to respondent No. 1.

Setting Aside the Ex Parte Decree Passed by the Family Court:
The Family Court had passed an ex parte decree against the appellant on 16.10.2014 because he failed to appear in the suit. The appellant filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to set aside the ex parte decree. However, the Family Judge dismissed the application, leading to the dismissal of the application filed under Order IX Rule 13 without considering its merit. The Supreme Court did not delve into the specifics of this issue in the judgment.

Granting Maintenance Under Section 26 of the Family Courts Act:
Respondent No. 1 had filed a suit against the appellant and respondent No. 6 in the Family Court, Malappuram, for realization of gold ornaments or their value, and for maintenance under Section 26 of the Family Courts Act. The suit was contested by the appellant and respondent No. 6. However, the Family Judge placed the appellant ex parte and passed a decree against him. The Supreme Court did not provide detailed analysis on this issue in the judgment.

Application Under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
The appellant had filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to set aside the ex parte decree passed by the Family Court. The Family Judge dismissed the application, and the Supreme Court did not address this issue specifically in the judgment.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned order, condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the High Court, and remanded the case to the High Court for deciding the appeal on its merits. The Court emphasized the genuine cause shown by the appellant, related to his prolonged illness, as sufficient to warrant the condonation of the delay in filing the appeal.