9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Delay in filing Title Appeal, Condonation of delay, Extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, Admissibility of the writ application, Principles of limitation and sufficiency of cause for delay. Analysis: The judgment by the Orissa High Court, delivered by Justices Pradipta Ray and Dipak Misra, revolves around the issue of delay in filing a Title Appeal and the subsequent application for condonation of the delay. The case involves a septuagenarian petitioner who approached the Court seeking relief under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution due to procedural restraints causing frustration among innocent litigants. The original suit was filed by plaintiffs for declaration of right, title, interest, and possession of land, contested by defendants leading to a partial decree in favor of the plaintiffs. The petitioner, facing delay in filing the appeal, sought condonation citing illness and non-negligence, which was rejected by the appellate and revisional courts. The petitioner's counsel argued for a liberal view in condoning the delay, emphasizing the valuable property involved and the petitioner's age. On the other hand, the respondents contended that negligent litigants should not be favored and emphasized the finality of litigations. The Court highlighted that limitation is a matter of adjective law and should not be the sole focus, citing previous judgments advocating a liberal approach in such matters. The Court analyzed the timeline of events, noting that even if the petitioner had applied for a certified copy of the decree earlier, the appeal could not have been filed before a certain date. The Court considered the delay in obtaining the certified copy of the decree and the subsequent filing of the appeal, ultimately ruling in favor of condonation of delay. The Court criticized the lower courts for adopting a rigid and legalistic approach instead of a justice-oriented one, emphasizing the principle that delay is not presumed to be deliberate or due to negligence. Regarding the contention that all appellants had not approached the Court, the Court held that technical objections were not valid once all relevant parties were brought on record. The judgment concluded by allowing the writ application, quashing the previous orders, and directing the disposal of the appeal on merits with substantial costs awarded to the plaintiff-opposing parties. In summary, the judgment addresses the complexities of condonation of delay in filing a Title Appeal, emphasizing a liberal approach, balancing the interests of the parties involved, and ensuring substantial justice while considering the principles of limitation and sufficiency of cause for the delay.
|
