2023 (7) TMI 1385 - SCH - Indian Laws

Condonation of delay of 52 days in filing appeal - sufficient explanation fro delay provided or not - parties were litigating with regard to the right over immovable properties - HELD THAT - This Court in the case of COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION VERSUS MST. KATIJI AND OTHERS 1987 (2) TMI 61 - SUPREME COURT has held The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on merits . The expression sufficient cause employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice-that being the life-purpose for the existence of the institution of courts. It is common knowledge that this Court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this Court. The above decision expressing the intention of justice oriented approach percolating down to all the courts was rendered nearly three decades ago but unfortunately the case on hand demonstrates the pervading insensitive approach, which apart from continuing the agony of the litigants concerned has also unnecessarily burdened the judicial hierarchy which after going through the entire process will have to set the clock back, at this distant point in time and prolong their agony. If only the court concerned had been sensitive to the justice oriented approach rather than the iron- cast technical approach, the litigation between the parties probably would have come to an end much earlier after decision on the merits of their rival contention - If that be the position, the very manner in which the lower Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay when the delay was not inordinate is not justified and the High Court was also not justified in dismissing the appeal only on the ground that there was no question of law. The delay in filing the appeal before the lower Appellate Court is condoned - Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the condonation of delay in filing an appeal, the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and the interpretation of the expression 'sufficient cause' in relation to delays in legal proceedings.

Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeal:
The appellants, who were defendants in the original suit, filed a Regular First Appeal challenging the trial court's decree. The appeal was dismissed by the lower Appellate Court due to a delay of 52 days in filing it. The High Court also dismissed the Second Appeal stating there was no question of law for consideration. The Supreme Court held that the delay could have been condoned as the appellants were contesting substantial rights over immovable properties. Referring to the case law, the Court emphasized the need for a justice-oriented approach and set aside the judgments of the lower courts, restoring the appeal for further consideration on merits.

Application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act:
The lower Appellate Court had dismissed the appeal based on the delay in filing, without properly considering the reasons provided by the appellants. The Supreme Court, citing the Indian Limitation Act of 1963, highlighted the importance of the expression 'sufficient cause' in enabling courts to do substantial justice. The Court criticized the insensitive approach of the lower courts and emphasized the need to balance substantial justice with technical considerations. By condoning the delay and restoring the appeal, the Supreme Court sought to ensure that the parties' contentions are heard on merits.

Interpretation of 'Sufficient Cause' for Delays:
The Supreme Court referred to a previous decision emphasizing a justice-oriented approach to condoning delays in legal proceedings. The Court criticized the lower courts for their technical approach, which prolonged the litigation and burdened the judicial system. By setting aside the judgments of the lower courts and restoring the appeal, the Supreme Court aimed to expedite the resolution of the dispute between the parties. The Court underscored the importance of removing injustice and ensuring a fair hearing of the parties' contentions, signaling a shift towards a more justice-oriented approach in such matters.