2023 (11) TMI 814 - SC - Indian Laws

Condonation of delay of around 479 days in presentation of the appeal - whether the first respondent had shown sufficient cause for which the appeal could not be presented within the prescribed period of limitation? - HELD THAT - The High Court s decision to condone the delay on account of the first respondent s inability to present the appeal within time, does not suffer from any error warranting interference. STATE OF NAGALAND VERSUS LIPOK AO 2005 (4) TMI 321 - SUPREME COURT arose out of an appeal where this Court condoned the State s delay of 57 days in applying for grant of leave to appeal before the high court against acquittal of certain accused persons. This Court observed that in cases where substantial justice and a technical approach were pitted against each other, a pragmatic approach should be taken with the former being preferred. Further, this Court noted that what counted was indeed the sufficiency of the cause of delay, and not the length, where the shortness of delay would be considered when using extraordinary discretion to condone the same. In BALWANT SINGH VERSUS JAGDISH SINGH 2010 (7) TMI 556 - SUPREME COURT , this Court refused to condone the delay of 778 days in bringing on record the legal heirs of the petitioner therein through an application filed under Order XXII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It was observed that though sufficient cause should be construed in a liberal manner, the same could not be equated with doing injustice to the other party. For sufficient cause to receive liberal treatment, the same must fall within reasonable time and through proper conduct of the concerned party. The Court emphasised that for such an application for condonation to be seen in a positive light, the same should be bona fide, based on true and plausible explanations, and should reflect the normal conduct of a common prudent person. As the aforementioned judgments have shown, such an exercise of discretion does, at times, call for a liberal and justice-oriented approach by the Courts, where certain leeway could be provided to the State. The hidden forces that are at work in preventing an appeal by the State being presented within the prescribed period of limitation so as not to allow a higher court to pronounce upon the legality and validity of an order of a lower court and thereby secure unholy gains, can hardly be ignored. Impediments in the working of the grand scheme of governmental functions have to be removed by taking a pragmatic view on balancing of the competing interests. The special circumstances obtaining here that the impugned order reasonably condones the delay caused in presenting the appeal by the first respondent before the High Court, the present appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Justification for condoning delay in the presentation of an appeal.
2. Sufficiency of cause shown for delay by the first respondent.
3. Application of legal precedents and principles in condonation of delay.

Summary:

1. Justification for Condoning Delay:
The primary issue was whether the High Court was justified in condoning a delay of 479 days in the presentation of an appeal by the first respondent. The High Court had allowed the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, condoning the delay but imposed costs of Rs. 10,000/- on the first respondent.

2. Sufficiency of Cause for Delay:
The first respondent attributed the delay to institutional inefficiency and bureaucratic inertia. Key events included delays in applying for and obtaining a certified copy of the Reference Court's order, multiple approvals, and procedural delays in the payment of court fees. The High Court found these explanations sufficient, distinguishing between explained and unexplained delays, and noting that the negligence did not border on callousness.

3. Application of Legal Precedents:
The Court referred to several precedents, including *Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors.*, emphasizing a liberal and justice-oriented approach in condonation matters. It noted that while the length of delay is immaterial, the sufficiency and acceptability of the cause shown are crucial. The Court distinguished between an 'explanation' and an 'excuse,' emphasizing that the former must clarify the circumstances without denying responsibility.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court reiterated that condonation of delay is a discretionary power and must be exercised based on the sufficiency of the cause shown. It emphasized that the impersonal nature of government functioning and procedural delays should be considered. The Court found no arbitrariness in the High Court's decision, highlighting that the order must be clearly wrong to warrant interference.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to condone the delay, finding no error in the exercise of discretion. It dismissed the appeal, emphasizing a pragmatic approach to balance competing interests and remove impediments in governmental functions.