CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING SECOND APPEAL BY THE GOVERNMENT

[DR.MARIAPPAN GOVINDARAJAN]

In any judicial matter limitation is there at every point of time. Normally 3 years of time is prescribed for filing a civil suit from the date of cause of action. Likewise, every act has its own limitation period for filing application/petition, first appeal, second appeal etc. If the same is filed beyond the limitation period the litigant to file an application before the Court along with the petition/appeal seeking the condonation of delay. The petitioner has to give satisfactory explanation which prevented him from filing the litigation to the Court for the condonation of delay.

The Supreme Court in MAJJI SANNEMMA @ SANYASIRAO VERSUS REDDY SRIDEVI & ORS - 2021 (12) TMI 1424 - SUPREME COURT, it was held that that even though limitation may harshly affect the rights of a party, it has to be applied with all its rigour when prescribed by statute.

In AJAY DABRA VERSUS PYARE RAM, SUNDER SINGH & ANR. - 2023 (1) TMI 1279 - SUPREME COURT, the Supreme Court held that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the ‘sufficient cause’ which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona fide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamount to showing utter disregard to the legislature.

In STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VERSUS RAMKUMAR CHOUDHARY - 2025 (1) TMI 60 - SC ORDER, the respondent, in this petition filed a civil Suit vide No. 79A/2011 before the Civil Judge, Class-2, Katni seeking permanent injunction in respect of lands at three places. The respondent contended that he has possession of the said lands since 1970. He has also been given leasehold right by the Settlement Officer during 1989. The Trial Court dismissed the suit on 29.08.2013. The respondent filed an appeal against the judgment of the Trial Court before Additional District Judge, Katni. The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal filed by the respondent on 21.08.2014.

The land in Khasra No.107 admeasuring 0.36 hectare was registered in the name of Bhu-Dan Board, Government of M.P. and the land in Khasra Nos.108 and 115 was reserved for Charokhar, Grass, Beed or Chara as per Nistar Patrak; and the respondent was not in possession of the said lands and leasehold right was not given to him by any settlement officer and no consent was also given in this regard.

Based on the above case, the State filed the second appeal against the judgment of District Judge, Kani before the High Court in S.A. 2895 of 2019 and an IA No. 13106 of 2019 seeking to condone the delay of 5 years 10 months and 16 days in filing the said appeal. The High Court dismissed the second appeal on the ground that it was filed with inordinate delay of 5 years 10 months 16 days and no satisfactory reason was put forth by the appellant on 24.01.2024.

Against the order of the High Court the appellant State Government filed the present special leave petition before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court considered the case and the available documents of the State. The Supreme Court observed that there was enormous delay occurred at every stage i.e., from the date of receipt of the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court to till the date of filing the second appeal by the State. The first appeal was decided on 21.08.2014. The said order was communicated to the Collector only on 25.08.2015 i.e., after a delay of one year. After 3 months from the date of receipt of the order, the Collector informed the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department on 10.12.2015. The Law Department took 3 years’ time and gave permission of filing second appeal on 26.10.2018. The said communication was sent to the Collector on 31.10.2018.

The State preferred the second appeal only on 18.10.2019. There was a delay of 1788 days in filing the second appeal by the State for which there was no proper explanation offered by the State to the High Court.

The Supreme Court observed that the discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised judiciously based on facts and circumstances of each case and that, the expression 'sufficient cause' cannot be liberally interpreted, if negligence,

inaction or lack of bona fides is attributed to the party. The length of the delay is a relevant matter which the court must take into consideration while considering whether the delay should be condoned or not. Once it is held that a party has lost his right to have the matter considered on merits because of his own inaction for a long, it cannot be presumed to be non-deliberate delay and in such circumstances of the case, he cannot be heard to plead that the substantial justice deserves to be preferred as against the technical considerations. While considering the plea for condonation of delay, the court must not start with the merits of the main matter. The court owes a duty to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation. It is only if the sufficient cause assigned by the litigant and the opposition of the other side is equally balanced that the court may bring into aid the merits of the matter for the purpose of condoning the delay. The question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration. The rules of limitation are based on the principles of sound public policy and principles of equity. We should not keep the ‘Sword of Damocles’ hanging over the head of the respondent for indefinite period of time to be determined at the whims and fancies of the appellants.

The Supreme Court held that that the High Court correctly refused to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal by observing that such inordinate delay was not explained satisfactorily, no sufficient cause was shown for the same, and no plausible reason was put forth by the State.

In this case there was an enormous delay of 1788 days occasioned in preferring the second appeal due to the lapses on the part of the officials functioning under the State, though valuable Government lands were involved. The Supreme Court directed that the State Government may fix the responsibility on the officer(s) concerned, and penalize the officer(s), who is/are responsible for delay, deviation, lapses, etc., if any, to the value of the loss caused to the Government.

The Supreme Court also held that a party is entitled to wait until the last day of limitation for filing an appeal. But when it allows the limitation to expire and pleads sufficient cause for not filing the appeal earlier, the sufficient cause must establish that because of some event or circumstance arising before the limitation expired it was not possible to file the appeal within time. No event or circumstance arising after the expiry of limitation can constitute such sufficient cause.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal with costs Rs.1 lakh to be deposited by the State within a period of two weeks from today with the Supreme Court Mediation Centre.