9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. 2. Merits of the decree obtained by the plaintiff-respondent. 3. Applicability of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. Detailed Analysis: 1. Condonation of Delay under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act: The primary issue in this case is whether the delay in filing the appeal by the defendant-appellants should be condoned. The Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur and Tehsildar, Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur, filed an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 8-12-1995. The delay was attributed to the counsel's failure to inform the appellants about the trial court's judgment dated 12-9-1994. Upon learning about the judgment, the appellants promptly applied for certified copies and filed the appeal along with an application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act on 5-5-1995. The lower appellate court rejected the application for condonation of delay, citing that no affidavit was filed by the counsel engaged by the appellants and the explanation for the seven-month delay was unsatisfactory. The court referred to the principles laid out in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Hema Ram, emphasizing that negligence, deliberate or gross inaction, or lack of bona fides on the part of the party or its counsel should not expose the opposite party to a time-barred appeal. However, the expression "sufficient cause" must receive a liberal construction to advance substantial justice. The court also cited the case of State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani, where the Supreme Court of India condoned a delay of 109 days, highlighting that the State should not be put on the same footing as an individual due to bureaucratic delays. 2. Merits of the Decree Obtained by the Plaintiff-Respondent: The court noted that the lower appellate court did not address the merits of the case while rejecting the application for condonation of delay. The disputed land, measuring 6825 Square Yards, falls within the category 'C' of Schedule 'I' appended to the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. Under Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act, the plaintiff-respondent is not entitled to possess land more than 1500 Square metres in an urban agglomeration falling within category 'C'. The court opined that the factual and legal position regarding the land was sufficient to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits. The failure of the lower appellate court to consider the merits resulted in a miscarriage of justice. 3. Applicability of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976: The appellants argued that the decree obtained by the plaintiff-respondent was per se illegal and without jurisdiction in view of the mandatory provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The court found this argument significant and relevant to the case's merits. Conclusion: The court allowed the second appeal, setting aside the judgment and decree dated 8-12-1995 passed by the lower appellate court. The case was remanded back to the lower appellate court with a direction to decide the appeal afresh on merits, emphasizing that courts should ordinarily decide appeals on merits unless they are hopelessly devoid of merit. The court highlighted that the Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur, being an instrumentality of the State, is entitled to the same benefits as the State while interpreting "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act.
|
