1987 (2) TMI 309 - SC - Central Excise

Application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act Held that - The Court while considering an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act will consider the facts and circumstances not for taking too strict and pedantic stand which will cause injustice but to consider it from the point of taking a view which will advance the cause of justice. In this case admittedly the appellants are agriculturists living in villages and the applicant is also a very young person having little knowledge about the steps that are to be taken. Moreover, he has clearly stated that he came to know of the pendency of the appeal filed by his father as one of the appellants only recently that is on August 4, 1972 and the application was made on August 5, 1972. Considering all these facts and circumstances we feel that for the ends of justice and fair play the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should be allowed as in our opinion sufficient cause has been made out for the delay in filing the application for bringing on record the legal representative of the deceased Inder Singh. Of course, we also think it just and proper that the applicant must pay to the respondent a sum of ₹ 500/- in cash as costs. The appeal is thus allowed. The judgment of the High Court is set aside

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal, condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, knowledge of legal representatives about the appeal, sufficiency of cause for delay, application for bringing legal representatives on record after abatement.

Analysis:
The case involved a delay in filing an appeal due to the death of one of the appellants. The High Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, stating that the legal representatives had knowledge of the appeal but did not take necessary steps within the limitation period. The Supreme Court considered the facts and circumstances, citing legal precedents emphasizing a balance between justice and strictness in such matters. The appellants, who were agriculturists, and the applicant, a young person, had limited knowledge of legal procedures. The Court found that sufficient cause was established for the delay, as the applicant only became aware of the appeal shortly before filing the application to bring the legal representatives on record. Consequently, the Court allowed the application, setting aside the High Court's judgment and remanding the matter for decision on merits.

The Court highlighted the importance of considering the circumstances of the case and the interests of justice while deciding on applications for condonation of delay. It noted that the strict and pedantic approach should be avoided to prevent injustice. In this instance, the Court took into account the background of the parties involved, their limited legal knowledge, and the timing of the applicant's awareness of the appeal. These factors led the Court to conclude that sufficient cause existed for the delay in filing the application to bring the legal representatives on record after the abatement of the suit. Additionally, the Court ordered the applicant to pay costs to the respondent as a measure of fairness, emphasizing the importance of complying with procedural requirements while upholding principles of justice.

Overall, the Supreme Court's judgment focused on balancing the need for procedural adherence with the equitable considerations of the case. By allowing the application for condonation of delay and remanding the matter for further proceedings, the Court aimed to ensure a just outcome while emphasizing the importance of fair play and compliance with legal requirements.